Lords Sitting of 6 November 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Consumer Legislation
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations have been received on the timing and content of the consumer Bill; when these representations were received; and from whom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since early summer we have received 44 representations on consumer legislation. Representations have been received from national organisations such as the National Association of Consumer Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association and the Federation of Small Businesses and from individuals and Members of Parliament.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that consumer complaints to local trading standards officers about unsatisfactory goods and services are now running at the rate of 1 million per year? The National Consumer Council estimates that there are probably 85 million cases per year of unsatisfactory goods and services. In such circumstances, does not the Minister feel it would be appropriate for the Government to put a new consumer Act at the top of their legislative programme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the bad news is that I cannot anticipate what might be contained in the Queen's Speech. The good news is that a great deal of what the noble Lord and the Government want can be achieved without primary legislation. In particular, the use of secondary legislation and the application of the EC injunctives directive have the prospect of making the existing law more effective.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the more serious abuses of consumers is intimidation and harassment by debt collectors, especially of elderly people? The present sanction of withdrawing a debt collector's licence is something of a nuclear option. Does not my noble friend think that it would be better to have a range of sanctions, including fines imposed by trading standards officers, to deal with the malpractices of debt collectors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. His successor at the Office of Fair Trading also agrees. My noble friend will have seen that Mr John Vickers has announced increased activity by the Office of Fair Trading
1228
through the use of trading standards officers of local councils under the powers given by the EC injunctives directive, to which I referred earlier.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. I have been a victim of punitive debt collectors who threatened distress on my home for a seven year-old debt. I told them, "Look, rather than this, I shall pay. But I shall report you to the appropriate ministry". They backed down. Does the Minister agree that we need some help from government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord's bad experience. I cannot think it happened because he is elderly. The existing legislation has only had available criminal sanctions, which, as has been said, are a nuclear option. We need greater use of local action and injunctions. That would go some way towards dealing with a problem which will continue to crop up.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Government consider reintroducing some of the provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1927 which were inexplicably omitted from the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Will the noble Lord undertake to investigate this issue? I think he will find that there is merit in my suggestion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his lesson in history. My knowledge does not go back that far. I shall have to write to him about the provisions of the 1927 Act which were not re-enacted. It would seem that he has made a valid point.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when I introduced my Private Member's Bill on counterfeiting and copyright theft earlier this year his response was so constructive and positive that I withdrew the Bill? I know that the industry has been in touch with the department. How much progress has been made in those private talks? Does the Minister anticipate that progress will be made towards introducing legislation in regard to counterfeiting and copyright theft?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot comment on the private talks to which the noble Lord refers. The best hope of getting action on his admirable Private Member's Bill is not through primary legislation but through more direct action. I cite in particular the establishment of Trust UK, a form of self-regulation for e-commerce in which the Consumers' Association and the CBI are joined. That is not the same point as the one made by the noble Lord but it may be a way forward for the problems he identifies.

NHS Administration
2.42 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to give an approximate estimate of the number of committees existing under the auspices of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Department of Health does not collect information on the number of committees operating within the National Health Service. The Government are, however, committed to saving £1 billion on management costs over five years from 1997–98 and are well on course to do so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that to ask even as energetic a Minister as himself to count up to so vast a number would be unreasonable. I hope that the noble Lord agrees with me on this matter. Will he do all that he can to cut out a fungus that has been growing for years, stifling initiative, blurring responsibility and wasting resources? It is a terrible phenomenon.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, I had considered whether to set up a committee to inquire into the number of committees! I fully accept that the National Health Service needs a lean administrative structure, and that is our aim. I accept also that we should, so far as possible, attempt to make decisions in time-limited task forces and small groups which bring together managers, commissions and other professional staff within the National Health Service, overseen by the necessary statutory committees.
I must, however, say to the noble Lord—whose autobiography is a very good read—that he himself is not short of sitting on a committee or two. I particularly commend his membership of the Confederation of European Ministers of Transport, which he describes as an "unusual international body". He says that it,
"generated goodwill, mutual understanding, and never even looked for anything to have a row about".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving my book a much-needed puff!
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that I asked a question earlier this year to which he was not able to give an answer—namely, how many layers of management there are in the National Health Service between a staff nurse in a hospital and the Secretary of State? Has anyone managed to count them, or is the figure too high for a human to comprehend?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not recall the noble Lord putting the question in precisely that manner. Clearly, it is not possible to describe the activities of 500 different organisations in the National Health Service. Each will have different management arrangements. We are seeking to ensure that decisions are made as speedily as possible. I have no doubt that the NHS Plan, which is focused on ensuring that doctors, nurses and other professionals are fully involved in decision-making, will lead to the most effective decisions being taken as quickly as possible.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that my noble friend Lord Peyton makes an essentially wise point—namely, that the decision-making processes in the NHS are often painfully slow and cumbersome? What initiatives have the Government taken to streamline decision-making and to bring about savings?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I explained, we are well on course to make the savings that I mentioned. As a percentage of NHS expenditure, the total spent on management costs has come down from 5.5 per cent in 1996–97 to 4.6 per cent in 1999–00. We shall continue to make reductions in management costs, as we have pledged to do. The most visible example of the Government's approach to more effective and streamlined management is the establishment of the NHS Plan. It was produced within four months, and involved nearly 150 people working in the front line of health to bring about change. As a result, we have produced a practical, effective plan which will lead to major change. We are expecting each local health community to undertake a similar process, which I believe will be equally successful.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people—of whom I am one—no longer believe that there are too many chiefs as opposed to not enough indians in the Health Service? There may not be enough indians, but the service certainly needs strong management at the top. It is wrong to think that such a huge enterprise can be run without that. Does the Minister agree on the importance of top management?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, indeed, my Lords; the quality of leadership in the NHS is crucial. That is why, in the NHS Plan, we have set out proposals for establishing a leadership centre in order to identify and give support to the lay managers and professional managers who will lead the NHS through a process of change. But at the same time we need to ensure that we reduce unnecessary administration to a minimum level. That was the whole purpose of abolishing the internal market, which made the NHS suffer through a countless and endless paperchase. We have very good leadership in the NHS. That will lead to effective change in the way services are provided.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister focuses on committees and leadership. Given that his interest in these subjects is now aroused, will he recall that a committee cannot lead? Leadership comes from individuals. Is it too late to look back to the hospital matron, who has disappeared from the National Health Service—to its eternal loss?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I commend to the noble Lord the NHS Plan, which refers to the creation of "modern matrons". It is true that, over a period of 20 years, senior ward sisters have lost autonomy. Functional management in relation to catering and cleaning has taken away their responsibility for the direct management of individual wards. One of the most important ways in which we can improve patients' quality of experience is to give back to senior ward sisters many more powers than they have had in the past few years. That is what the concept of the "modern matron" is all about.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Salmon report did away with matrons, sisters and so on? It was implemented by Sir Keith Joseph.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. That report also created an extensive hierarchy. In the past few years, particularly with the introduction of the internal market and general management, the hierarchy was removed. This created problems because, having attained a level above that of ward sister, very few nurses entered senior management positions. At board level in particular, a senior nurse became a professional adviser rather than a manager. We need to turn that situation around. We need senior nurse leaders who can have an enormously influential impact on the quality of decisions taken within an individual hospital.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government do not know how many committees there are within the NHS. If they do not know the number of such committees, how will they know when the number is reduced?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are talking about 516 NHS bodies. It would be quite a waste of time and resources for us to undertake a census or audit of each committee in existence within such bodies. We use the concept of management costs as a way of keeping control on the amount of money spent on management. As I explained, we are seeing a reduction in management costs that will net the health service £1 billion for expenditure on patient services over a five-year period.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we shall be very keen to help him count the number of committees that are cut out as a result of that process?

House of Lords: Committee Sittings
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked the Leader of the House:
Whether she has any plans to reduce the number of hours for which it is necessary for the House to sit in Committee next Session.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. No one is more enthusiastic than I about improving the procedures of this House so that we use our time efficiently while retaining proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness will be aware that any change needs the agreement of the House, and that there is little scope for executive action. However, proposals are being discussed. One is to consider more Bills under the Grand Committee procedures in the Moses Room, which would certainly achieve the noble Baroness's aim. Unfortunately, at the moment, the opposition to that change comes from her side of the House.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply. Does she accept that 134 hours in the spill-over have been spent discussing legislation in Committee? Many of the Bills under consideration have been badly drafted—indeed, a number of noble Lords have complained about this—which has resulted in an enormous number of government amendments being tabled. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that this, in turn, has led to a lot of very tired, and sometimes rather ill-tempered, Peers in the Chamber. This has also affected the staff, especially the Hansard writers, who are extremely tired.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly agree that we have been sitting for longer than another place in the spill-over period. However, if the noble Baroness were to look at the comparative figures of the number of hours that we have been sitting, she would see that during the previous Session the House sat, on average, for seven hours and 36 minutes each day. Moreover, in each of the previous four Sessions, the average sitting day was also over seven hours. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to be very aware of the stress and strain put on the staff who serve us so well.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that we had a debate tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston earlier in the year, not only on the question of hours but much more besides? Perhaps my noble friend could advise the House what has been done since then, and tell us what has been achieved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have put forward various proposals, one of which was considered by the Procedure Committee last week. At that time, my noble friend the Government Chief

1233
Whip suggested that it might be sensible for the House to sit at different, not fewer, hours on a Thursday, beginning in the morning and ending in the evening. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that that proposal from the Government Chief Whip was rejected by the Procedure Committee.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many amendments have been proposed by the Government, both in Committee and on Report, to government legislation in this House during the current Session? If the answer to that question is what I suspect it will be, does the noble Baroness agree that the main culprit is not the procedures of this House but the inability of the Government properly to prepare their legislation? Indeed, when the Government realise that they have failed to do so, they use this House as a means of rewriting legislation wholesale and then ram it through another place without proper consideration. Does the noble Baroness further agree that the proposal that she has just made about taking a greater proportion of Committee stage business off the Floor of the House will actually make it easier for the Government to ram through more legislation, rather than it being considered properly?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with any of the points made by the noble Viscount, especially the final one. I did not suggest—indeed, I have never suggested—that the majority of Committee stages should be held in the Moses Room: I simply said that the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels have discussed the possibility of more Bills being considered in the Moses Room. For example, during this Session it has been possible to agree that Committee stages in the Moses Room should be taken only on Bills that will last just one day. As I understand it, that has not been the situation in previous Sessions.
I turn now to the number of amendments passed this year. As I am sure the noble Viscount is aware, information on the number of government amendments, as opposed to other amendments, is not kept in that form. However, I can give the noble Viscount the total number of amendments: during this Session 3,936 amendments were tabled, compared to 2,002 in the previous Session and 2,164 in 1992–93. Although the number of amendments for this year is large, I am sure that both the noble Viscount and noble Lords will see that it is not out of proportion when compared with other years.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in addition to taking more Committee stages off the Floor of the House—after all, Committee stages are intended to explore the ramifications and details of Bills—would it be of assistance to the House if we were to accept the proposal that votes should not be taken during Committee? Surely the taking of such votes on Report would be more appropriate for a part-time House, as this is.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is another matter that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has sought to raise. Indeed, it is something that I should very much support.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a strong case for increasing the number of Bills that are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, because that is one way of seeking to improve legislation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. Reverting to the subject of the previous discussion about Bills being taken off the Floor of the House, the noble Lord was heavily involved in the financial services legislation that was considered this Session. I believe that that Bill was proposed as being suitable for detailed scrutiny off the Floor of the House, but, unfortunately, that could not be agreed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that one of the main contributing factors to the time taken both in Committee and on Report is that there are long debates in Committee, after which the amendment is withdrawn, but then the debate is repeated almost word for word on Report?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that problem has certainly seemed to arise fairly regularly in Bills with which I have been involved. I suspect that it is a matter that could be looked at if we had the capacity to consider the procedures and workings of this House in a general way.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been a most unusual Session; indeed, the House has worked extremely hard, especially towards the latter part of it. Does the noble Baroness agree that the House has, on the whole, done its job extremely well? Will the noble Baroness take just a little bit of responsibility for the way that the Government have treated this House? Further, will she reconsider her answer to my noble friend Lord Cranborne? Is it not a fact that there have been a record number of amendments made to Bills brought forward by the Government? Bills have had their Second Readings months before being brought to the House for their Committee stages. There have also been massive gaps between the first and second days in Committee. All this has arisen because government Ministers have failed to make up their minds and decide what it is that they have to do. It culminated in, for example, over 100 pages of government amendments being tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that that will not happen again?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that I was responding to a point from his noble friend Lord Cranborne about the total number of amendments that have been

1235
passed. I hope that I was fair in my resume. As I said—I repeat it—the statistics are not produced in a form to show which are government amendments and which are others. A large number of amendments were tabled, for example, to the financial services legislation, which was referred to earlier.
As my noble friend the Chief Whip says so often when these matters are raised, this is a listening Government. I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that this is an unusual Session. At the risk of being repetitive, I refer to the statistics for third Sessions, going back to 1981–82. I have been challenged to recite those statistics. In the 1981–82 third Session, 46 Bills were passed: in 1985–86, 49 Bills; in 1989–90, 34 Bills; in 1994–95, 37 Bills, and we expect this year to pass 39 Bills.

China: Human Rights Dialogue
3 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the results of the human rights dialogue held between the United Kingdom and China in October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the fifth round of the bilateral human rights dialogue took place in London between 16th and 18th October. We discussed our concerns on a wide range of human rights issues. Although there was little progress on some issues such as the Falun Gong and freedom of religion, there was greater Chinese willingness to provide more detailed responses to our concerns and there were positive outcomes, including Chinese willingness to sign a memorandum of understanding with Mary Robinson on the provision of human rights technical assistance on 20th November; to accept in principle visits by UN special rapporteurs; and to provide further information on the list of individual cases submitted by the Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that China is going backwards, with the repression of the democracy movement, the severe persecution of the Falun Gong and the persecution of anyone who tries to uphold the Tibetan identity? Among the individual cases that the Government raised with the Chinese during the dialogue, did the noble Baroness include the five nuns who committed suicide in Drapchi prison because they could no longer endure the torture to which they were subjected?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we accept that there are many challenges in relation to China's human rights record. The fact that we are having this dialogue is important because it enables us, perhaps for the first time, to have an in-depth conversation about these difficult and painful issues. I do not know the precise names of the five nuns that the noble Lord
1236
mentioned, but in relation to Tibetan and other prisoners we have specifically raised cases and talked about them in depth. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord about the case of the five nuns.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Falun Gong. Is it not the case that numerous other religious bodies, whether Christian, Islamic or Buddhist, suffer constant harassment and persecution and that sometimes long prison sentences are imposed on their members for expressing their conscientious beliefs? Will the Government continue to raise these matters, regardless of the answer they receive from the Government of China, because until China ceases this kind of activity it cannot be accepted into the civilised body of nations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will continue to raise these issues in relation to human rights. They are matters of deep concern and the noble Lord is right to raise them. However, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the dialogue gives us an opportunity to do this in a specific and direct way.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given the still deteriorating Chinese human rights record—I believe that we all recognise that—can the noble Baroness assure us that the European Union arms embargo is still in place? Are we following the same rules as our European partners? Now that the US Congress has more or less given an unconditional green light to permanent normal trade relations with China, how does that affect our attitude to trade with China in the context of human rights?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord in relation to the arms embargo. As he knows, the EU imposed an embargo on the export of arms to China following the events of Tiananmen Square in June 1989. The embargo is not a full scope one. The UK's interpretation of it was set out by my late honourable friend Mr Fatchett in his reply to Parliament on 3rd June 1998. We do not sell any of the items he set out that would contravene that interpretation. Our interpretation of the embargo covers lethal weapons such as machine guns, large calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, rockets etcetera—the whole list.
In relation to our own policy we have taken a robust stance. As I said earlier, we continue to raise the issue of human rights. I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to the way in which our friends the Americans are going, but I reassure him that Her Majesty's Government's policy remains the same in relation to trade, arms and raising human rights issues.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, in her initial Answer my noble friend referred to one of the positive elements of the dialogue. Will she go further and give us some examples of other benefits that have come from the dialogue?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, the dialogue has enabled us to raise in depth a wide range of problems. It has created a conducive environment for a range of co-operative projects. For example, this year alone we are running a range of rule of law projects, including the role of defence lawyers, the strengthening of a proposed new evidence law and human rights training for young lawyers. We also have projects tackling issues such as child trafficking and promoting human rights awareness. We have encouraged China to move forward in co-operating with international human rights mechanisms. For instance, China signed the two UN human rights covenants in 1997 and 1998; and we expect them to sign a MOU with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on 20th November. Those are just some of the matters we have been able to achieve during the process I mentioned.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on flooding and flood defence.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Monday 27th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Offences relating to fur farming]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("or primarily").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as most of your Lordships were not able to be present at earlier stages of the Bill—not least because the Committee stage was held in Grand Committee in the Moses Room—it may help if I explain the background to the amendment.
Within the past couple of years the Government have formulated a novel doctrine; namely, that it is morally and politically correct to kill animals for meat, however expensive and esoteric that meat may be; it is morally and politically correct to kill them for the purposes of scientific research; to kill them for their musk glands from which expensive scent is manufactured; and to kill them for the leather from which expensive shoes, handbags and furniture can be made; but it is politically and morally incorrect to kill them for fur—although fur is rather less expensive and luxurious than many of the other items I have mentioned—unless the fur is a by-product of meat production. In other words, it is all right to sell rabbit fur provided that most of the profits from rearing the rabbits come from the rabbit meat. But what happens when, as in France at present and possibly other countries, the value of rabbit meat slumps and the value of their pelts rises?
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, posed just such a question in Grand Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, replied.
"It would be for the courts to decide on the meaning of 'primary' in particular cases'.—[Official Report, 17/10/00; col. CWH9.]
She went on to imply that one could reliably count upon the courts to interpret the law in a sensible manner. But is it wise to base the creation of a new criminal offence upon such optimistic assumptions? Surely it would be more sensible to avoid ambiguity and the possibility of unintended consequences by restricting the draconian new law to cases where the animal is bred solely for fur and nothing else. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we had a debate in Grand Committee which reflected some of the fundamental arguments on the Bill to which any Member of your Lordships' House could have contributed had he so wished. We also had a debate at Second Reading about the basis on which the Government believe that it is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life to allow the slaughter for their fur of animals kept specifically for that purpose. That is the fundamental basis of the Bill. Whether it is appropriate to outlaw that form of farming on grounds of public morality and ethical standards is an

1239
area of fundamental disagreement among some Members of your Lordships' House and another place.
There has been great debate about it. There are disagreements. However, the Government are firmly of the view that it is justified and that the arrangements in respect of those farmers affected have been made on the proper timescale with the appropriate compensation arrangements. At the urging of noble Lords, during passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, we have considered that issue carefully. We have taken on board the issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House. We have amended the Bill to ensure that the compensation arrangements cover income as well.
However, we cannot accept the amendment. It would undermine fundamentally the purpose of the Bill. It would remove from the scope of the Bill any animals kept primarily for slaughter for the value of the fur where there was any by-product. It would not matter what the nature of the by-product was—for example, whether it was meat for human or animal consumption, or animals kept for show, or stud animals, or those kept for oils or fats for cosmetics, lubricants or any possible usage. If there were any byproduct it would mean that the animal was not being kept solely for its fur. In effect, a coach and horses would be driven through the main purpose of the Bill. The size of the loophole that the amendment would create is not acceptable to the Government. It would undermine the primary purpose.
I accept that the noble Lord and others may genuinely believe that this primary purpose is not a correct one. We have argued that out. I believe that we have had proper scrutiny of what we are doing. The Government have taken on board the concerns expressed. I believe that now the National Farmers Union and the affected farmers believe that appropriate steps have been taken. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. I think that she fails to appreciate that in this country mink—I believe that they are the Government's target—have no usable by-products. In the United States I understand that after the fur has been removed, mink meat can be used for fertiliser and possibly pet food; and mink oil, for some reason, is extremely valuable. I was told this morning that Jerry Hall uses it on her hair—which gives food for thought. If the amendment were accepted, it would still not prevent the Government from banning mink farming. However, I do not think that I shall move the Government or the House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out ("£00,000") and insert (level 5 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this simple amendment is the most important amendment of the day. In a nutshell, it would reduce the maximum fine for infringement from a vicious £20,000 to £5,000, although that latter figure would tend to rise with inflation as fines on levels 1 to 5 do.
It is not a wrecking amendment. Some might wish that it were; but it will not have much practical effect since no one is likely to rush out and start a new, illegal fur farm on the basis of slightly lower maximum penalties. The amendment would provide the first opportunity for either House of Parliament to stand up and be counted, to demonstrate their distaste for this illiberal Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept, as the noble Lord says, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It looks at the appropriate level of maximum line that should be available to the courts on the offence being proved of keeping animals for their fur.
First, I make clear that, if there were successful convictions, the maximum of £20,000 is per offence of keeping animals for fur and not per animal kept. It is the Government's view that the effect of the amendment—it would reduce the maximum fine to £5,000—would not act as sufficient deterrent to the keeping of animals for slaughter for their fur once the ban is in force. I understand that the number of mink kept can range substantially from a few thousand animals up to 30,000 or more per farm. Each animal is worth approximately £20 and in the Government's view a maximum fine of £5,000 would not act as a sufficient deterrent.
I should make clear that £20,000 is a maximum fine and the court would have the discretion to impose a lesser penalty if it deemed that to be appropriate. I suggest to the House that it is sensible to leave that as the maximum, appreciating that the courts would take a proportionate view according to the scale of the business conducted. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her, as always, considered and emollient reply. I do not thank the Official Opposition for their silence. It is extraordinary that a party which professes to oppose political correctness sits firmly glued to the Bench when there is a chance to demonstrate its professed aims. None the less, it is a matter for that party.
I should dearly like to divide the House. However, there are no more than 25 noble Lords in the Chamber. The remainder have not heard the arguments for and against the issue. It would be foolish, therefore, to divide the House now. I shall postpone pressing the matter until the next stage when the House will be full for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the national press will be present in force. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
Clause 7, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3), sections 1 to 4 of this Act shall come into force on such day as the appropriate Ministers acting jointly may by order appoint.
(2A) Different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes.
(2B) No order shall be made under this section—

(a) before 1st January 2003, and

(b) unless, in the opinion of the appropriate Ministers, those persons engaged in fur farming in Great Britain, when taken as a whole, have failed to meet the then applicable Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes.

(2C) In reaching their opinion under paragraph (b) of subsection (2B), the appropriate Ministers may seek advice from such persons as appear to the appropriate Ministers to have knowledge or experience of animal welfare.
(2D) If the appropriate Ministers propose to make an order under this section they shall lay before each House of Parliament a document setting out the reasons for doing so, and no order shall be made until the expiry of the period of sixty days beginning with the day on which the document was laid.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has two purposes. First, the Government constantly affirm their determination to harmonise our laws and practices more closely with those of other EU nations. Acceptance of this amendment would demonstrate their commitment to such harmonisation. Secondly, nearly all noble Lords, including myself, deplore avoidable cruelty to animals. Unfortunately, a number of noble Lords have been supporting the Bill in the wholly mistaken assumption that its sole purpose is greatly to reduce such cruelty. If that were the case, the Government would accept the amendment. I suspect that they will not do so. We shall wait and see. I beg to move.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I was not asleep on the Bench, but, having heard the Question earlier this afternoon, I did not want to repeat my speech three times.
I have every sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, as my comments at Second Reading and in Grand Committee clearly show. However, I have discussed the three amendments with the National Farmers Union, which represents the 12 fur farmers who will be deprived of their legitimate livelihood by the Bill and who have been unable to trade sensibly or develop their businesses over the past two years. The NFU has assured me that it is satisfied with the state of the Bill as it stands, including the Government's commitment to adequate compensation. We therefore do not support the amendments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, on these Benches we support the swiftest possible passage of the Bill through the House. As far as we are aware, the
1242
amendment would merely delay the process and would be costly and bureaucratic. We therefore cannot support it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is correct about the technical aspects of the amendments. They would add unnecessary time and process to the business of implementing a measure that has been fully scrutinised and carefully drawn up, with implementation dates that are appropriate to an orderly run-down rather than a precipitate one.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, went to the heart of the issue, which is whether the Bill is aimed solely, or even primarily, to use the terms of the Bill, at animal welfare issues. Those who have kept up with the debate as the Bill has passed through the House know that it is not the Government's contention that the aim of the measure is to implement high animal welfare standards. Those are within European competence. We work with our colleagues in Europe to ensure that the welfare of farmed animals is properly protected and that there are high standards of animal welfare. Those provisions extend to fur or rabbit farming just as to other areas of farming.
The Bill is not about the level or implementation of animal welfare standards; it is about whether, at the beginning of the 21st century, it is appropriate to keep animals with a view to their slaughter solely or primarily to exploit the value of their fur. That moral issue goes over and above welfare considerations. In our view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life, and there is insufficient public benefit from the activity to justify destroying that life or breeding animals for that purpose. That is why we believe that it is appropriate to strike at the root of fur farming rather than simply to take action on welfare conditions. We shall continue to work nationally and in Europe to ensure high standards across the range of welfare concerns for farmed animals.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for confirming that the purpose of the Bill is not to implement high welfare standards and that it is essentially doctrinal—I can think of no better word.
I take issue with the Minister's assertion that the Bill has been fully scrutinised. A Bill that has been examined only in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, when very few noble Lords turn up, cannot be said to have been fully scrutinised.
I am aware that the NFU and the core of beleaguered fur farmers who have been attacked by sinister individuals in black balaclavas year after year favour the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said. They see no other end that would give them even the slightest justice. However, the interests of the NFU and the fur farmers are not automatically the same as the national interest. The Bill sets a terrible precedent. The Government could decide that a certain practice of which some Ministers—not necessarily all—disapprove is morally unacceptable and they could ban it by using their massive parliamentary majority.

1243
The Opposition have been short-sighted in concentrating solely on what the NFU says. I agree that the amended Bill is a reasonable answer in the short term, but the precedent that it sets is dangerous for the longer term. However, in the absence of any support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Disqualifications Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of section 1(1)(e) of the Disqualification Acts]:
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 1:
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("section") in line 6.
The noble Lord said: The Bill will remove the disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly for Members of either House of the Irish Parliament. It is a small but profoundly important and far-reaching Bill that has not been without controversy.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 37 would remove from the Bill the repeal of the disqualification for the House of Commons. They would allow Members of the Irish Parliament to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly but not of the House of Commons.
The amendments allow us to debate the issues at the heart of some of the objections to the Bill. Many of us have grave doubts about the principle of being a member of two sovereign Parliaments simultaneously, although it might be possible to be a member of a sovereign Parliament and of a subsidiary Parliament in another country. One has to swear two different oaths. The Irish Parliament does not have an exactly analogous procedure to the taking of the oath in the House of Commons but there is something similar. One would have two different sets of loyalties in two different Parliaments.
The amendments would allow the Bill to go ahead, because Members of either House of the southern Ireland Parliament could still sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly but not in the House of Commons.
With the greatest possible respect, the Minister failed to tell us at Second Reading why the Bill has been introduced. That remains a great mystery. It was certainly a considerable mystery during the debates in the House of Commons. The timing of the Bill has been mysterious. The Government say that there has been plenty of time for consultation. The noble and
1244
learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the matter had been given considerable consideration in the House of Commons. I believe that that is a rather elegant way of describing an all-night sitting and a Second Reading, followed immediately by a Committee stage but no Report stage. I do not call that normal consideration of a Bill. The Bill was published on 22nd December last year and all proceedings on it took place in the House of Commons at the end of January.
With regard to the principle of two people sitting in two sovereign Parliaments, one wonders: who wants it and why is it necessary? When the noble and learned Lord last spoke on this matter, he presented it very much as a tidying-up measure to bring into line the provisions for the Parliament of Ireland with Commonwealth legislatures. Leaving aside the fact that Ireland has never been in the Commonwealth, I stand to be corrected by the Minister but I am not aware of an example of a person sitting simultaneously in a Commonwealth legislature and the House of Commons. Therefore, I was not convinced by this being presented as simply a tidying-up measure.
I have read that people in the Dail do not want this legislation. I have read editorials in Irish newspapers opposing this legislation. I know that the Ulster Unionists do not want it. I know that Mr Trimble does not want it. What is its purpose? When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke on the matter before he made no reference to the Good Friday agreement or the Belfast agreement. Indeed, those agreements make no mention of this measure. One had one's suspicions, and I am bound to say that my suspicions were increased somewhat.
We debated this Bill on the penultimate sitting day before the Summer Recess. I believe that the Minister was of the opinion that I considered there to be a conspiracy behind the legislation. If I had held any such belief, it was confirmed somewhat when, shortly after this House rose, or perhaps shortly before, Sinn Fein published a policy document (which I did not see) recommending that all Westminster MPs from Northern Ireland should also be Members of the Dail. The words "Sinn Fein" never escaped the lips of the Minister when he justified this Bill; nor, so far as I can see, were those words mentioned in the debates in another place.
It is being proposed that a person should have simultaneous membership of both sovereign Parliaments. That proposal is not identical but bears a resemblance to what is being proposed in the Sinn Fein policy document. Today the Minister owes the House a convincing explanation as to why this legislation is necessary. It has had a curious profile throughout its parliamentary passage. It was rushed through the House of Commons and rushed through its Committee stage. It was then delayed until the latter days of July when it was suddenly reintroduced here.
So far as I can see, the legislation does not command wide support in Northern Ireland. Therefore, as it bears a close resemblance to proposals put forward by Sinn Fein, I believe that the Minister must convince us that it is not being enacted only to satisfy Sinn Fein.
If it is possible for one to be a member of two sovereign Parliaments, or if one can be elected, let us say, to a Northern Ireland seat and be a Member of the House of Commons and also a Member of the Dail, that is moving a long way down the road towards implying that Northern Ireland is equidistant from both the House of Commons and the Dail. It implies that both Parliaments have a similar entitlement to pronounce and intervene in the affairs of Northern Ireland, leaving the suspicion that this is part of the process of merging Northern and southern Ireland. The Minister may say that that is a strong allegation. However, he has given no convincing explanation as to why the measure is being brought forward. I can see no possible explanation, and I tabled my amendment in the way that I did in order to make that point.
Lord Dubs: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions so that I fully understand the thrust of his amendment. First, he referred to the House of Commons. Does his amendment imply that membership of this place would also be barred?
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am trying to remember what happened some time ago. I believe that Seamus Mallon, Leader of the SDLP, Deputy First Minister and Member of Parliament, was at one point offered a seat in the Senate in Dublin but had to decline because he was barred from doing so. If I am right in my somewhat hazy recollection of events from the past, does the noble Lord believe that it would be inappropriate for Seamus Mallon to be a member of the Senate in Dublin?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for raising his second point. With regard to his first point, I should of course know but I believe that I am right in saying that my amendments do not include the House of Lords. Later I shall table an amendment which touches on the House of Lords. However, the principle behind the amendment is to retain the House of Commons disqualification, thus removing the part of the Bill that applies to disqualification for membership of the House of Commons if one is a member of another Parliament.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord in relation to Seamus Mallon, as I understand it the law was altered in 1998 to allow him to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am not sure whether he ever sat simultaneously in the Senate and in the House of Commons. I believe that he probably did not, but I hope that I may be enlightened on that matter while the debate proceeds.
I am also unsure as to whether Seamus Mallon was an elected or an appointed member of the Senate. I believe that he was probably the latter, and that makes a considerable difference to the argument. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point and I hope that the matter may be made crystal clear because it is germane to everything in the Bill. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand that Seamus Mallon was, indeed, appointed as a member of the Senate in 1982. However, he was not elected to the House of Commons until some years after he had left the Senate. During his time in the Senate some controversy arose as to whether he could be a member of the then Assembly in Northern Ireland. The matter went to the courts, but in the end the answer was that he could not.
However, that is irrelevant to this Bill except by allusion because, as my noble friend said, the Bill does two things. It permits a member of the Irish House of Commons to sit for a United Kingdom constituency in Westminster at the same time and it also makes it legal for an Irish MP to sit at the same time in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as in the Dail. My noble friend's amendment draws our attention specifically to the question of dual membership of the two Houses of Commons—that is, another place and the Dail.
My noble friend also pointed out that this Bill was sold to your Lordships at Second Reading as the correction of a legal anomaly that had somehow entered our law because of the position of Commonwealth countries. Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth until 1949 but left voluntarily. Discussion is taking place as to whether it might return at some point, but I do not believe that at present that is seriously on the table. But, in any event, that would alter the position in a whole series of very important respects.
I do not believe that the Commonwealth analogy stands up to any form of examination. I shall return to that on a later amendment, which is more directly related to it. For the moment, I merely assert that the idea that this Bill somehow corrects an anomaly by bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth in that respect is rubbish.
My noble friend also drew attention to the fact that we have not had answers to the two most important questions: first, who wants this change; and secondly, why are the Government prepared to expend scarce parliamentary time in trying to achieve it?
As regards representing two constituencies in two parliaments at the same time, the first matter that I should point out is that nobody in this country can represent two different constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons. It is not allowed; it is illegal. It is legally possible to stand in a general election for two or more different constituencies, and in days gone by, that was regularly done. But then, as now, if someone happened to be elected for two separate constituencies, he would have to choose one or the other before taking his seat in another place. So you cannot sit as a Member for two separate constituencies in the House of Commons; yet this proposition is that people should sit for two separate constituencies in two different parliaments in different jurisdictions.
I looked up the last person to achieve that feat of winning two constituencies in the same Westminster general election and it was Mr O'Brien. That is not, I hasten to add, Mr Mike O'Brien, the Home Office

1247
Minister who helped to recommend this Bill to another place, but a Mr William O'Brien. Interestingly enough, it was in southern Ireland, before the creation of the Republic, when southern Ireland was represented in the House of Commons, along with the rest of the United Kingdom. That Mr William O'Brien was elected in the 1910 general election to serve in the House of Commons for both Cork City and the county constituency of Cork North East. The Committee may be interested to hear that he elected to serve for the city of Cork, and another Member was duty elected to serve the county constituency.
Nobody, to my knowledge, in recent years has even tried to repeat that success by standing for two constituencies at once. But if a candidate were successful in doing so, he, like Mr O'Brien, would have to choose which one he wished to represent.
In passing, I should draw the Home Office's attention to what I believe to be the real anomaly in this particular situation, which occurred to me while pondering the Bill. I should not be surprised to find that some supporter of a specialist minority cause—proportional representation springs to mind, but there are others—stands at a general election in a large number of constituencies so that although he could not, in any circumstances, expect to be elected for any one of those constituencies, he might assemble enough votes over a large number of constituencies to claim that, in aggregate, he should have been elected. That would be quite an argument. But, of course, the correction of that anomaly, which is genuine, is not possible under this Bill. Other legislation would be needed for that.
I return to the main argument. It may be said that the so-called "dual management" is allowed in that a person can serve in both Westminster and the European Parliament. I understand that the Labour Party dislikes people serving in both Westminster and the European Parliament and puts its own Members under great pressure in that respect. So that is not an argument which Ministers are likely to advance but in any case, that is a wholly different matter.
However, it is significant that neither Ministers nor anyone else is suggesting that people from any other member state of the European Union except Ireland should he able to stand in the two different member states' parliaments. This proposal is special to Ireland alone.
So who wants it? I have no evidence—and the Minister has produced none—that any English, Welsh or Scottish MP wants to sit at the same time for an Irish constituency in the Irish Parliament. Ulster Unionist MPs are unlikely to want to sit in the Dail and even if they wished to do so, they would be unlikely to be elected because, as we know, Protestants have been substantially eased out of the country since the Republic was formed.
The SDLP or even Alliance Members might conceivably be elected for two constituencies in the two countries but, frankly, I do not think that it is their style to try that kind of trick.
1248
On the other hand it is exactly what members of Sinn Fein want. One of the very few people to welcome this legislation when it was first proposed was Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, who said it was a "significant move" and "a breakthrough" and things like that. Of course, members of Sinn Fein would love to stand for a constituency in the Republic and for another in Northern Ireland. They would not, of course, take their seats in Westminster. They do not do so. They refuse to take their seats because t would mean that they must recognise the legitimacy of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, they would sit in the Dail and then claim to represent part of the United Kingdom there, as well as the constituency for which they were elected within the Republic. That claim would be made easier by the fact that because of Ireland's proportional representation system, under which four or five Members represent each of the constituencies, they would share the representation of a large constituency in the Dail but be the sole representative of the constituency in the United Kingdom for which they were elected.
I am told by Northern Ireland sources that that is exactly the point of the Bill. I am further told that Mr Pat Doherty is suggested as the first candidate; that he wants to stand in West Tyrone in the United Kingdom and, subsequently, in Donegal in the Republic for a seat in the Dail. In that way, he hopes to be able to claim to represent West Tyrone in the Dail and that, I think, would be a very grave matter indeed.
But I do not doubt that if we were to agree to this Bill, it would not be long before Mr Adams and, for that matter, Mr Martin McGuinness and others no doubt, were looking for seats in the Republic so that they could claim to represent West Belfast and Mid Ulster, and wherever else, in the Dail.
At present it is said in Sinn Fein propaganda, although not by Mr Adams himself, as far as I know, that its members do not wish to do that. But I do not think that it would be long before they would see the advantages to them and their propaganda of so doing. That prospect appals me as a negation of democracy and of national sovereignty. It was no part of the. Good Friday agreement, which is otherwise regarded by the Government as virtually Holy Writ. But in this case, it seems to me that it runs flat counter to the recognition of the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland to decide in which country they wish to live and it cuts right across the new all-Ireland institutions which were set up by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. They are flourishing at present or, at least, are in action at present and doing their best to flourish as much as they can.
What about the second question: why are the Government proposing this measure to Parliament? The Prime Minister sometimes displays a naivety about Irish matters which can seem appealing from time to time, if you are sufficiently distant from them. On the other hand, the Taoiseach is a shrewd polit ician and negotiator. The Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, is renowned for very careful thought and calculation in all that he does. I cannot believe that he has not realised the effect of passing this measure.

1249
Perhaps there is a secret plan to ease Northern Ireland gradually into the Republic through this form of back door. If so, are the British Government a party to it or are they just being näive? I do not know the answer to that question. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord who is to respond to the debate does not know the answer either, at least at present. I do not blame him. As I understand it, he has picked up the brief comparatively recently and is obviously relying on his instructions. I do not suppose that he was involved in the decisions on the Bill last December. In some respects, it would be surprising if he had been able to give it much thought in the past week or two. If I were in his shoes I would be thinking a little more about the Dome. If this was a defence case that he had been asked to put forward in court, I suspect that he would have suggested to his client that he plead guilty and have done with it.
As I said, I do not know the answer to the question. However, throughout the proceedings today and at later stages, we shall do our best to tease it out. I do not see why the Government should want to permit what seems to me to be a constitutional outrage. Even if the Government wish, I do not see why Parliament should agree to it. Apart from anything else, if we were to do so it would betray the Good Friday agreement and would set a bomb under our democracy.
Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name in this grouping is a rather different, specialist amendment. It suggests that if somebody who sits for a United Kingdom seat should later find himself elected also to the Dail, he should submit himself to a by-election in his United Kingdom constituency to confirm his membership of the United Kingdom Parliament with his constituents before taking up his seat in the Dail.
It is sometimes said that anything is possible in this country, provided it has been done before. It is also said that there is a precedent for everything and that therefore everything is possible. There is a sort of precedent here. I refer to the 19th century practice under which a Member of Parliament who was appointed a Minister had to return to his constituency on appointment and have his membership confirmed by a by-election. The constitutional theory behind that was that appointment as a Minister would affect his ability to represent his constituents. They therefore had a right to confirm or withhold his right to be their representative. That is an excellent constitutional doctrine. However, it fell foul of the fact that it narrowed the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint the best possible Ministers to the government. For that reason, it was dropped. I do not propose its resuscitation. However, I believe that for this Bill it would be a highly relevant procedure to put in place.
The individuals concerned, who would represent two different constituencies in two different sovereign parliaments, would have two completely separate sets of loyalties, both to two lots of constituents and, indeed, to two sovereign states. In those circumstances, it is only reasonable that the constituents of the individual as a United Kingdom Member of Parliament should have the opportunity to
1250
confirm his or her position in that respect before the individual takes up the other appointment. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Desai: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, somewhat spoilt the first half of his speech by speaking to his amendment. Unlike the constraint proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the amendment is a mild constraint on what the Bill attempts to do. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, proposes that a person cannot sit in the Dail and the House of Commons at the same time. However, all that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seems to be asking is that if he or she does so, that person would have to submit to a by-election. That sounds absolutely fine; it is an exemplary measure. Perhaps the Government should think of accepting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It would be a nice discipline.
The noble Lord referred to the qualification of citizens of other countries which are members of the European Union to contest election to the House of Commons. At present they are not allowed to do so. However, that may be a violation of a statute or acquis communautaire in the European Union. One should not be able to prevent a citizen of another European country standing for election to the House of Commons. I should like to know whether or not that is the case. I know that it is possible to stand for the European Parliament from any country within the European Union. I do not know whether there is any legal provision not in violation of the European—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The position is that one cannot stand to be a member of a European Union legislature and the House of Commons. The question raised is interesting. The front of the Bill contains the declaration that its provisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the European convention. However, on the face of it, one would have thought the provision discriminatory.
Lord Desai: I thank the noble Lord. He has made my point for me. It cannot be the case that we can prevent citizens of France, Belgium or anywhere else standing for election to the House of Commons and being a member of another parliament and this Parliament. It may be illegal to represent two constituencies within the United Kingdom in the House of Commons. However, there cannot be a rule against someone representing two different constituencies in two different countries in two different parliaments, so long as the electorate agrees. It has nothing to do with anyone else.
I believe that the right way to proceed on this matter is not to say that exception is made for Ireland but that exception is made for all members of the EU. The whole problem would then be resolved.
4 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: As always, I am most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Desai. During my short time in this place I can think of no

1251
intervention that he has made to which I have not listened with both interest and amusement, let alone profit to my own knowledge. However, I find it difficult—it gives me great pain to say this—to follow his remarks. I simply cannot agree with him. The noble Lord may remember that when some of her courtiers wanted to wear foreign decorations which they had been given, Queen Elizabeth I was heard to observe that she did not like her dogs to wear foreign collars. That is precisely what this Bill is about, and, indeed, what my noble friend Lord Lamont talks about in his amendment, which I enthusiastically support.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe, as my noble friend Lord Lamont stated, that it is not possible for a Member of this sovereign Parliament to sit also as a member of another sovereign parliament of a country which is a member of the European Union. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, proved when he stood for an Italian Euro-constituency, it is possible for a citizen of this country to stand for election to the European Parliament for a constituency in another country which is a member of the European Union. As I understand it, the rationale—though it is questionable—is that the European Parliament is not a sovereign parliament and that this Parliament, perhaps by the skin of its teeth, still is.
I return to Queen Elizabeth I and the nub of my noble friend's amendment. For those of us who believe in the central position of Parliament in our national life—a position which is increasingly under threat for all sorts of reasons which need not detain us here—it becomes difficult to accept that dogs can wear two collars. Whatever the difference of opinion may be about the Oath (even a cursory reading of the extensive debates in another place on this Bill show this) and whatever the doubts about its present wording, nevertheless it constrains all those who swear it—Members of both Houses—under severe implied threat to devote themselves to the national interests of this country.
It is difficult to believe that the present law fulfils what I consider to be an overriding consideration. After all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out at Second Reading, Members of Commonwealth legislatures are allowed to sit in this Parliament. It is that fact which allowed the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading to make clear that he regarded this Bill as merely a tidying-up operation, setting right an anomaly which does not apply to the Republic of Ireland when it applies to the Commonwealth. I regard the provision which allows the Commonwealth dual mandate—to put it in shorthand—to be an anomaly in itself.
I was brought up in what might be thought of as an imperial household. I well remember, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, arguments as to whether it was right that colonial assumptions should persist in the modern world. With the increasing growth of independence among the countries of the former empire and the development of a Commonwealth which included many republics, particularly the
1252
example of India in 1947, should this imperial Parliament assume such a high degree of supremacy that, by implication, any other parliament was inferior? It was thought that there was not an equal mandate in both Parliaments. It was perhaps that assumption more than anything else at the time, which enabled us, with a sense of effortless superiority which was easier then than now, to assume that so inferior were other Commonwealth parliaments, that no equal dual mandate would be implied if one were a Member of a Commonwealth parliament and of this Parliament. I utterly reject such a suggestion.
It is only right and proper—I am perhaps trespassing into the territory of a later amendment but it is germane to the argument raised by the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading and which my noble friend is endeavouring to address in this amendment—to say that, just because the Commonwealth membership applies, therefore it should apply to everybody else. It seems to me, particularly now, that it is right for Commonwealth countries to be regarded as the equal of this Parliament; indeed, it is the essence of their status of independence that that should be so. Therefore, it is a relic of imperial days that this extraordinary anomaly should persist and the sooner it is put right, the better. I fail to see how the noble and learned Lord can use the argument he did at Second Reading and it is all the more sensible therefore for my noble friend to put forward his argument against the dual mandate.
We know that, even in this global world, which has become such a cliché in every political speech, nations still have different interests. Those nations which are fortunate enough to be governed by genuine parliamentary systems must be sure that their members have a clear interest in promoting the interests of their nation. If there is a dual mandate in those sovereign parliaments, there must be a question among members who are members of another Parliament as to where their true interests lie. It is entirely wrong, as a matter of principle, that this Bill should be put forward in this way.
I have already tried to draw a distinction between this Parliament and the European Parliament. It is right and proper that my noble friend should draw a distinction between this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Northern Ireland Assembly was created, at least in part, in a genuine effort to try to ensure that a settlement applied in Northern Ireland which enabled both the nationalist and the unionist traditions to co-exist and prosper together. That cannot be so here. At the risk of being invidious, we do not have to look far back—sub specie aeternitatis—in the history of the 20th century to see just how often other countries find themselves at odds with the interests of this country. A case in point is the Republic of Ireland.
I speak with huge affection for the Republic; my mother's family come from County Limerick so it would be surprising if I did not. But we have to remember that His Majesty King George VI's Ambassador to the Third Reich conveyed the sympathies of the Irish Government to the Third

1253
Reich on the death of the Führer in 1945. I hope that the arguments of those days are now water under the bridge, that we can forget them and look to the future. But that is the most glaring example, not very long ago and when this country was at its greatest moment of peril, when we find that the Republic of Ireland had a different agenda from our own. It is therefore peculiar, to say the least, for the Government to reject my noble friend's amendment.
It is only sensible, at the beginning of this Committee stage, for me to support my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Lamont, in their inquiries, in the gentlest of terms, as to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill. I worked my way, with a sense of mounting tedium, through the extensive Official Report records of the debates in another place. At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord—who always tries to help the House—had constraints put upon him. During the course of proceedings in another place, just as here, no information whatsoever was given about who had asked for this Bill, under what circumstances and why. The only hint that your Lordships' House was given was by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms who said that he had been told that this Bill was part of the choreography of the Belfast agreement. It was not part of the Bill but part of its choreography.
That hint demands an explanation from the Government. What is it all about? Our suspicions must be hugely increased by the extraordinary timetable of the progress, if that is the word, of this Bill through Parliament. There was the extraordinary passage of a Bill, which allegedly was not urgent, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's remarks during its course in another place. He actually said that this Bill was not urgent. Nevertheless, it was subjected to urgent procedures in another place. There was no week's delay between Second Reading and the remaining stages.
Despite the evident hurry back in January this year, there was then an extraordinary and pregnant pause between the Bill finishing in another place and appearing for Second Reading here. We did not see it until the end of the summer term at the end of July. It was explained to us by the Government Chief Whip that it would be helpful to produce it for Second Reading at the same time as he knew that Members of your Lordships' House who live in Northern Ireland would be here. I am sure that the Government Chief Whip thought that that was a good and sufficient reason. It is typical of him to want to be so helpful to your Lordships, particularly those who travel far to come here. None the less, it is perfectly extraordinary that other members of the Government asked the Chief Whip to make those kinds of excuses without giving us a straight answer. Given that in principle this Bill is doing utterly the wrong thing and is encapsulating a division of interest, it must be right—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he has seen the document entitled Sinn Fein Submission to the All-Party
1254
Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, headed "Six County Representation in the Oireachtas". It argues that the traditional demand by the Northern Ireland nationalists has been for representation in the Dail. It refers to the fact that historically they had representation in the first and second Dail. It continues by explaining a number of different ways in which they could sit in the Dail. They argue that one "solution"—their word—might be that all 18 Members in the House of Commons could also sit in the Dail at the same time. Is it not extraordinary that the Government's proposals, for which no convincing explanation has been given, dovetail so well with what is in this document?
Viscount Cranborne: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He anticipated precisely what I was about to say. My noble friend Lord Cope set the matter out so clearly that I did not believe that repetition was necessary. However, my noble friend Lord Lamont has set it out even more clearly. I am familiar with the document to which he referred.
As my noble friend Lord Cope said, this Bill is a constitutional outrage. It is even more outrageous given the hole-in-the-corner way in which the Government have introduced it and the extraordinary way in which they have marshalled its passage through Parliament. There are also the rumours which have surrounded the dates for the remaining stages of the Bill during this spill-over period. The rumours I have heard have continued. As I understand it, the dates have changed almost continuously over the past few weeks, no doubt in order to accord with the tortuous negotiations which are no doubt going on behind the scenes between the various parties to the Good Friday agreement. It is a bad Bill, and that has been compounded by the way in which it has been handled. This Committee should be extremely grateful to my noble friend for this amendment, which I enthusiastically support.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have a good deal of sympathy for the Committee and particularly for the two Front Benches in not for the first time having to disentangle a constitutional and political monstrosity such as this. As a Ulsterman I feel ashamed of the way in which this House has been treated, not for the first time, by the present occupants of the Northern Ireland Office by producing legislation which is indefensible by any standards and which, let us face it, defies common sense. We had an example only a few weeks ago in another piece of Northern Ireland Office-inspired legislation. But for the wisdom of the present Front Bench, and if we had subscribed to it in full, we would have brought the whole system of British democracy into disrepute.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, one of the mysteries is who asked for this Bill. I have never been able to discover the source of the pressure. There has never been an explanation. That is compounded by the timetabling to which the noble Viscount referred. The Bill appeared suddenly in the other place at the

1255
very end of January. It then went into hibernation until, as the noble Viscount said, literally the last few hours of this House sitting before the Summer Recess. The Bill then disappeared yet again. No more was heard of it. Hints were dropped that no one was very enthusiastic about it. I do not blame them for that when one considers all the pitfalls. It was thought that the Bill might not be heard of again.
Now for no apparent reason it has been exhumed yet again and we are invited to give it a final polishing. The pressure which has been applied and the way in which Her Majesty's Government have been forced to surrender to it has meant that we are all in the ridiculous position of soiling our hands with something which is indefensible. I wonder whether it is correct that the Bill puts Irish representatives on the same footing as representatives of legislatures in the Commonwealth. The Bill is by no means clear. In fact contradiction is piled on contradiction in that field.
There is also contradiction in some of the phrases used such as "elected to" the House of Commons or to the Irish Parliament. There is another contradiction as regards taking seats in the other place. It is all very well to he elected but it is a different matter to take one's seat holding the views shared by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness. Where is the explanation, the dividing line and the criteria between someone being elected, which is a comparatively simple operation in many ways? One can pick a constituency with a large majority in accordance with one's own views, which is very different from taking one's seat if the person elected knows very well that those who voted for him or her would certainly not approve of his actions. All these matters need to be sorted out if we are not to have yet another unworkable, indefensible piece of legislation on the statute book.
Finally, I wish to make a point which was made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It was not made in any sense of antagonism. For as long as 30 years, I have had occasion to consult with our friends in the Irish Republic. However, we must face the fact that they are working to their own agenda simply because they are responsible to an entirely different electorate. It is not a British electorate. As perhaps an accidental election looms over the horizon, they will be more sensitive to a suggestion that they are co-operating with the "hated Brits". That is the kind of language to which they resort as polling day draws near.
With all due respect to them, and making allowances for their problems, it is a great mistake to fool ourselves into believing that they look on all such matters in a broad-minded way, as we in this House tend to do.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Before speaking to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points and ask one question. First, I understand that the Disqualifications Bill works as follows. Someone is elected, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux said, that is fine. The issue of qualification arises when, having been elected, the person wants to enter the House to take his seat. I cannot see how the Government could resist the amendment because one
1256
of the qualifications is that a Member should not support terrorism. The 1981 Act made it clear that it is a disqualification to do so. That would inevitably apply to the members of Sinn Fein who might want to enter. Therefore, it is a fairly empty procedure to get elected and then not be able to take one's seat.
Not only that, but after representations had been made that Gerry Adams should be allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons he was asked whether he could see himself doing so were the Oath to be changed—for instance, with reference to the Crown removed. He replied,
"No, because the issue for us is the claim of that Parliament to jurisdiction in Northern Ireland".
So even if they were not disqualified by their connections to terrorism, they would still not be prepared to take the Oath. Therefore, the procedure is empty.
The people who would be qualified would be Members from any other party in the Dail; but when asked whether the other parties had been consulted all that the Minister in the other place was able to say was that this Government had talked to the Irish Government and they supposed that that reflected the view of some of the political parties. That was hardly a detailed answer.
My second point is that there is an inherent impossibility as regards the human rights issue. When Martin McGuinness went to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that it was unjust that he had been excluded from sitting here because he would not take the Oath, the court clearly ruled that this Government were acting entirely within their rights. When he said that he was being refused entry because he refused to take the Oath, the court found that that need not prevent him entertaining his republican views, but that the rights also extended to the right of the state to protect effective democracy. The Oath requirement can be considered a reasonable condition attaching to elected office, having regard to the constitutional system of the respondent state. It also said that it must extend human rights to the protection of constitutional principles which underpin a democracy. The court also pointed out that the electors, in voting for him, full well knew that he would not take the Oath and therefore would not be able to take his seat. We are therefore looking at yet another travesty because it is manifest that members of Sinn Fein, if elected, would not take the Oath, and therefore would never take their seats, and that the others are not interested.
Finally, I do not believe that it is clearly enough understood that those who are electing such people would themselves have their rights taken away. I should like to know whether there is a single example of an existing Member of a Commonwealth legislature solemnly coming to the United Kingdom, putting himself up for election and being elected. I do not know of any such case and I shall be interested to be told whether there has been one.
If it has not happened, once more this Bill is perfectly ridiculous because it is wholly unlikely that someone is going to come all the way from Australia

1257
or Tonga, go to Lewisham and say, "I thought that I would like to enter the House of Commons". I cannot understand why the legislation still exists, but to use it and say solemnly that this wonderful right, which has so freely been exercised by members of the Commonwealth, should be now extended to those in Dublin because we are friends is absolute nonsense.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: Of all the legislation I have seen pass through both Houses during my 35 years as a Member, this is the most confusing. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in his journey through history because I have a little history in relation to the Bill.
Unfortunately, I was called away when the Bill received its Second Reading in this House. I therefore had to depend on the reports of that debate and those in the other place. The more I read, the more alarmed I became. I believe that there is something happening which I do not understand and, what is more, which I am not meant to understand.
When both the week after Second Reading and last week I went to Ireland, I contacted all my friends in the Irish Parliament; in Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, the two major parties, and in the Democratic Left. I asked whether any of them put forward the idea of serving in both parliaments. The members of Fianna Fail to whom I spoke were very cagey about it. Those of Fine Gael were very annoyed about it. Those of the Democratic Left laughed about it and I shall illustrate why in a moment.
I said to members of those three parties that when they read the Irish newspapers—particularly the Irish Times and the Belfast newspapers—they can see the government of the Republic of Ireland expressing opinions every day of the week, and sometimes every hour of the day, in relation to what is happening in Northern Ireland. I asked my Dublin contacts why it is that no member of the government or opposition there has seen it right to express an opinion on the legislation. I should be very happy to hear a member of the government of Fianna Fail, or even a Fianna Fail TD, or the leader of the opposition, Fine Gael, or one of their members, standing up in the Dail saying, "We made representations for this legislation and we fully support it". But why the silence? That is why I say that there seems to be something sinister about the legislation. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who said that it seems to be particularly designed to please Sinn Fein, the political party in Northern Ireland. I read the debates in the House of Commons. No member of the SDLP was present to vote for this legislation. One would have thought that if its members had contemplated having a dual mandate they would have been there, but they were not. It is hard to understand why the Labour Government seek to push through this legislation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, took us on a jaunt through history. I offer another which is very pertinent to a Labour government and my own
1258
socialist beliefs. In 1948 Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth. Under the then premiership of Mr Costello and the Minister of External Affairs, Sean MacBride, the Irish Republic, as it became known, was taken out of the Commonwealth. That withdrawal was followed by the Government of Ireland Act 1949 which had a disastrous effect on politics in Northern Ireland. I was there at the time that it happened and I witnessed it with a broken heart.
When Ireland was partitioned in 1920 both sides went into their trenches. The only people who did not do so were members of the trade union movement and the Labour Party. They saw it as their function to put aside the emerging border politics and represent workers, whether they be Catholic or Protestant or of no religion at all. Once the Labour government put the Government of Ireland Act on the statute book it created what James Connolly had predicted in 1910 when the first rumblings of partition began to be heard. He said that if Ireland was partitioned it would bring about a carnival of reaction among the working class, because pro-border and anti-border Protestant and Catholics would be set against one another. That was exactly what happened when Ireland withdrew from the Commonwealth, and the Government of Ireland Act 1949 was introduced. It wrecked the Labour movement in Northern Ireland at that time and caused great division among the trade union movement. The Labour and trade union movement had tried its best to avoid border politics but the Government of Ireland Act 1949 pitched it right into the middle of it.
I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I watched that happen. After 1949 there were two, if not three, Labour parties: the Northern Ireland Labour Party which was in favour of the present border; the Irish Labour Party which was against the border; and the Republican Labour Party which was opposed to the border. The whole Labour movement was torn asunder because of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the subsequent introduction of the Government of Ireland Act 1949. That is why there is today no Labour party as such in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
The Social Democratic and Labour Party has another agenda. That party, which freely admits that it is a constitutional nationalist party, was created by the antecedents of the Government of Ireland Act. One cannot join any Labour party in Northern Ireland today without having political division on the border as a result of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, began by referring to Queen Elizabeth I and, half-way through, the Commonwealth. That was the most important lesson that I learnt because of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, drew an imaginary picture of what would happen if one put one's name down for a number of constituencies. Is it possible for such a scenario to arise? That was what happened in Northern Ireland in the Assembly elections. Every candidate who put his name on a nomination paper for a seat in the Assembly hoped to get votes from all over

1259
the six county areas and the constituencies. It was the aggregation of votes for candidates representing different parties which enabled them to take seats. For that reason, there are two Sinn Fein Ministers. At the end of the election Sinn Fein was able to say that it had received so many thousand votes; the Alliance Party, which came behind it, said that it had received so many thousand votes and was entitled to two seats. That is a very bad way to run elections; and sometimes the results can be very disappointing.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that Sinn Fein has already decided to put forward a candidate who will be elected to a Northern Ireland constituency and will then fight a cross-border constituency—Donegal, Louth or Monaghan—in which case it will be able to say that its candidates represent areas North and South of the border. That would give it a good fillip. It would be very bad news for the SDLP, and even worse news for the government of the Republic. In that scenario, when candidates stand on that kind of ticket, backed up by this legislation, it is quite possible for them to win seats in the Republic. The emotional impact of one candidate standing for a dual mandate—a seat in the Republic and a seat here—could be tremendous. If it happened in three or four constituencies Sinn Fein could be part of a coalition government in the Republic after the next election. Therefore, Sinn Fein has an agenda. Speaking as a Labour man all my life, it is unfortunate that that agenda has been helped along by a Labour Government. They are pushing ahead according to a Sinn Fein agenda to the total exclusion of every other political party in the Republic of Ireland. None of them wants to see this legislation.
I read the replies of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He did not appear to convince anybody, certainly not me, of the necessity for this legislation. People in Northern Ireland are convinced that this is another concession to Sinn Fein. We have seen what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past month. Murders by Sinn Fein and loyalists take place every day. Four so-called loyalists were murdered last week. Sinn Fein murdered a member of what is called the Real IRA. I find it hard to put that into words. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that it is still associated with Sinn Fein. It is not right for any government to help that political party.
As in the case of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, opinions voiced on this Bill in this House will be analysed. Most of the people who speak against the Bill will be depicted in Northern Ireland as unionists or Protestants. I could be classified as associating myself with them and making anti-Irish comments. Let me make it clear, again and again if necessary: I am not a unionist. I have fought unionism all my political life in Northern Ireland. I am certainly not anti-Irish. But that is the way that some of these remarks will be taken when this debate is reported.
Can the noble and learned Lord get someone to ring up the Taoiseach—I understand he was in Leeds last night—and say to him, "For God's sake, will you issue a statement saying that you support this legislation?"; or do the same thing with Fine Gael, and say, "Please,
1260
please, I am in difficulty here. Everyone is pounding hell out of me in the House of Lords. So will you say something that will justify our enacting this legislation?"? I would then be prepared to believe that there is some validity for the Bill. At the moment I do not believe that that is so.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that,
"surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament".—[Official Report, 27/7/00; col. 721.]
Having listened to the debate today, I should like to invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who, I believe, will reply for the Government, to extend a modest courtesy to this Parliament and reply to the question that has repeatedly been asked, both in this House and in another place; who has asked for this Bill? It is a very important question because so far we have heard that there is only one political party whose programme would be furthered were the Bill to be enacted. That is Sinn Fein. It is essential to be told whether anyone else has asked for the Bill and, if they have, when and in what circumstances?
Another modest courtesy would be for the Minister to say why the Bill has been brought forward. I need not repeat—the hour is getting on—the extraordinary timetable that has been followed, both in the other place and in this House. Why was it brought forward? Why has this timetable applied? We are told that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement; it is consistent with it. The Good Friday agreement was argued over for an enormously long time, and represents, I say again, a great achievement for all those who participated in it. But it is extraordinary that this Bill, which is a substantial constitutional measure, should be brought forward in circumstances when it was not contemplated apparently by those who participated in the Good Friday agreement. I very much hope that there will be answers now to these questions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In effect this has been another Second Reading debate in relation to the Bill. Two questions have run through the whole short debate. First, why are we having this Bill? Secondly, who asked for the Bill? As to why are we having the Bill, without going into the matter at any length—speakers in the debate have revealed an understanding of the legal position—it is the case that at the moment, before the Bill is enacted, members of all other foreign parliaments are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and of the Northern Irish Assembly unless the foreign parliament is a Commonwealth parliament. Equally, in relation to voting in parliamentary elections, one cannot vote in a British parliamentary election unless one is a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen. Equally, one is qualified to take one's seat in the UK Parliament only if one is a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen.
Therefore, with regard to voting and the right to sit in Parliament, Commonwealth, Ireland and UK citizens are treated as one. As to disqualification from membership of the UK Parliament, where one is also

1261
a member of another parliament, the UK Parliament and Commonwealth parliaments are treated as one but the Republic of Ireland parliament is treated separately. So at the moment there are two separate anomalies in our law. First, the Republic of Ireland parliament is not treated the same as Commonwealth parliaments for the purpose of dual membership. Yet the Republic is treated the same when it comes to voting in British general elections and when it comes to the right to take up one's seat in the UK Parliament. That is not talking about dual membership but the right to vote and the right to take your seat.
Viscount Cranborne: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has given the technical position which all Members of the Committee accept. This may be an unusual question. Does the Minister think that it is right that the Commonwealth position should be as it is?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is the position as it is. There is no proposal to change the position, either in relation to the dual mandate issue, so far as concerns Commonwealth parliaments, nor in the right of the Republic of Ireland's citizens either to vote or become Members in the United Kingdom. So that is what the position is. That being the—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, I do not think he answered the question from my noble friend Lord Cranborne. But in any case does he know of any example when the ability of members of Commonwealth parliaments to sit in the House of Commons has ever been exercised? I have gone to some trouble to find out. I put down a Parliamentary Question. The Home Office did not know. I asked the House of Lords Library. It has been through such information as is available to it. It has no record of the right ever having been used. It consulted the House of Commons Library, which consulted bodies outside. This great ability of members of Commonwealth parliaments that the Minister talks about, with which we have somehow to bring ourselves together, is completely empty. It has never ever been used in history. What is more, it is never likely to be used.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I have posed the question and no one has been able to tell me of any occasion on which a member of a Commonwealth parliament has also sought to sit in the House of Commons. Therefore, I am not in a position to gainsay what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says in that respect. But it should be remembered that there are two aspects to this issue. It is not just the dual mandate issue. There is also the right of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in UK parliamentary elections and their right to take seats separately from the dual mandate issue.
Lord Laird: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not true that to gain a vote in this
1262
country— whether one is a UK citizen, a citizen of the Irish Republic or a citizen of a Commonwealth country—one has to be a resident?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think that is right. But a resident's right to vote would not apply to people except in the categories I have indicated; namely, Republic of Ireland, Commonwealth and British citizens. So, yes, I think there is a residency requirement. I shall check, but I think that there is. That does not give one a right either to vote or stand in the UK Parliament elections unless one is also a member of one of the three groups I have indicated
Lord Elton: We are in Committee, so I do not apologise too much for interrupting yet again. As I understand the matter, the noble and learned Lord is seeking a kind of geometrical or symmetrical argument in saying that what applies to electors should apply to representatives. If one has a vote, one should be able to sit in Parliament. Surely, the responsibilities of being an elector and of being a representative are entirely different here. Therefore the analogy fails to carry any force.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, no, because I am seeking to draw attention to the fact that, in relation to who can vote and who can sit in the UK Parliament, the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom are treated as one. Should not the position be the same when it comes to the issue of dual mandate? That is the basis on which, as a matter of form and substance, we approach the issue.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether it is right that citizens of the UK, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland should all be allowed to vote and sit. No one suggests that there is anything wrong with that approach. In relation to the dual mandate issue, which is separate, the noble Viscount put forward an elegant historical argument based in part on dinner time discussions in the Cecil family. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, put forward arguments in that respect. But the position is as it is; and there is very much to be said for the position being consistent.
That is particularly so when the position is, as I believe that it is, that our relations with the Republic of Ireland are good. Following the Belfast agreement, they have been strengthened by four new British/Irish treaties; and they have been strengthened by the changes in the Irish constitution to reflect agreement on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and by new institutions to develop further British/Irish co-operation. So, in the context of a good relationship with the Republic of Ireland—a relationship that has never been better—it is appropriate that these changes be made to provide consistency in the position. That is why we think it appropriate to introduce changes.

1263
Perhaps I may respond to the second point that was made: who asked for it? I am not sure that that is an appropriate question to ask in relation to legislation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Surely it is for the promoter of legislation—that is usually the Government, but it could equally be a private Member—to say, "We think that this is appropriate legislation to promote"; and it is then for Parliament to decide whether it agrees or disagrees with the promoter of the legislation.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect to him, I really do think that his last answer is beyond caricature and so I shall not dignify it by saying anything else. But his argument about good relations between the Republic and the United Kingdom is a little curious. If good relations is a criterion for dual mandates, should we not also be negotiating with the United States on similar terms?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, because the United States is not in the same position as the Republic of Ireland. The moment the noble Viscount begins to identify countries that are not among the countries that are treated differently—Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland—different questions arise which could not possibly be resolved by a Bill of this kind. No basis is established by previous legislation that would justify such an approach.
Those are my answers to the two questions that have flowed through the debate. I accept that these are very, very serious issues which require important consideration. Between Committee and Report I am more than happy to meet noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux—to discuss them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Is the noble and learned Lord really saying that one fine day the Prime Minister woke up and thought what an interesting idea this would be and then failed to consult anyone but the Taoiseach and Sinn Fein? It sounds a very curious way of initiating legislation.
Lord Hylton: I invite the noble and learned Lord to explain the extraordinary stop-and-start nature of the progress of the legislation through both Houses.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I have sought to set out the justification for the Bill: why we are proceeding with the Bill and what its merits are. It is a matter for both Houses of Parliament to decide whether they agree or disagree with the merits of the Bill, just as it is for them to decide in relation to any Bill placed before them whether by a private Member, the Opposition or the Government. The points being made along the lines of "We do not know
1264
who asked for it" should not distract one from identifying whether a particular House of Parliament agrees or disagrees with the Bill; and, with the greatest respect, in Committee we discuss the detail of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the progress of the legislation. The Bill went through the House of Commons in January. The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in February, until May. No steps were taken to further the Bill at that time because of the suspension of the Assembly. The Bill was then placed in the timetable of your Lordships' House on a date which the Chief Whip—I know noble Lords will accept this—thought would be convenient for Members of your Lordships' House who come from Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, looks surprised by that, but I can tell him that that was the reason why the date was chosen. It was known that another Bill concerning Northern Ireland was due to be debated on the same date and it was thought that it would be convenient and helpful for Northern Ireland Members of your Lordships' House if this Bill also was dealt with on that date. That is why the present timetable has been followed. I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to accept that that was why 27th July was chosen.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Even though this is Committee stage, perhaps I may say that he has been very generous in giving way. I always accept what the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms says, and anyone who knows him will also accept it. Therefore, as we must accept that, I wonder how the noble and learned Lord would interpret the words of the Government Chief Whip on 27th July that the Bill was part of the "choreography"—I think that I quote him reasonably exactly—of the negotiations. Will the noble and learned Lord consider that point in the light of the intervention a few moments ago of my noble friend Lady Park?
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also explain why the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly should suddenly have made the Bill inoperable? Would it not be just as effective with the Assembly suspended unless the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly had in some way affected the choreography of the Good Friday agreement and relations with the government of the Irish Republic?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In answer to the noble Viscount's question, the choreography point is, as I hope that I have indicated in the course of my remarks, part of the reason for bring the three groups into line—the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland; it is because of the deepening and improving relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, in part as a result of the Belfast agreement. It is something that arises out of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked why, the Assembly having been suspended, the Bill did not then go through its normal parliamentary stages. Plainly,

1265
with the Assembly suspended, it would have been insensitive—there were particular sensitivities applying at the time—for the Bill to be pursued at that particular time.
Those are the answers to the question "Why?" and those are the answers to the question "Who wants it?". In relation to—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is moving on from the questions that he was asked. He indicated that he was not sure whether it was appropriate to ask the question: who has asked for the Bill? Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, I wonder whether I may help him to resolve that question. When considering legislation, is it not generally rather wise to know whether certain people will be pleased and certain people displeased by it? The noble and learned Lord knows well enough those who will be displeased by it. Surely it is relevant to ask the question: who will be pleased by it and, therefore, who—if anyone—has asked for it? It is this point which, I venture to suggest, makes my question appropriate.
5 p.m.
Lord Fitt: Before my noble and learned friend replies, perhaps I may say to him that I, too, have been thinking along these lines. My noble and learned friend has not answered the question of whether any of the major political parties in the Republic have asked for this measure. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the other side of that question: did he ask any of the major political parties in the Republic what they thought of the Bill, or did he not ask for their opinions because he might not have been happy with the answers he would have received?
Baroness Strange: I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking out of turn. Perhaps I may quote a short poem which I believe might be helpful to the noble and learned Lord:
"As I was going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there the other day,
I wish that man would go away".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that I have already given my answer to the question of who might have asked for the Bill. It is for the Government to decide, in the light of their consultations, whether a Bill is appropriate. We should remember, too, that this Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons in January of this year. We have now reached November and therefore 11 months have been allowed for views to be sought. I do not think that any doubt exists as regards the majority of people's views in relation to the Bill. Plenty of scope has been given for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, however, surely it must be for the two Houses of Parliament to decide what they think of the Bill. They must form their views not on the matters that surround the Bill, but on the merits of the Bill itself.
1266
Perhaps I may turn to a number of other matters. First, as regards the specific question put to me on the position of Mr Seamus Mallon. Mr Mallon did not sit as a Member of the Irish Senate and the House of Commons at the same time. He had resigned from the Senate before his election to the House of Commons. Currently, it is not possible to sit in both the Senate and the House of Commons. However, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it is possible to be a Member of the Irish Senate and a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Secondly, perhaps I may deal with the specific amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The effect of his amendment would be that in the circumstances of a dual mandate with the House of Commons and either the Dail or a Commonwealth legislature, it would be necessary to resign one's seat and to be re-elected. Requiring a Member of the House of Commons to resign and submit to re-election if that Member sought to be elected to the Irish or a Commonwealth legislature would, in effect, impose a new restriction on Commonwealth citizens that we do not feel would be sensible.
It has been suggested during the course of the debate that one individual cannot properly carry out his duties in more than one legislature; namely, that this would be to the detriment of all his constituents. That proposition goes much further than is considered appropriate in respect of dual membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the devolved administrations, where there are no such restrictions. As Members of the Committee know, individuals can and do hold seats in two or even—under certain circumstances—three of these legislatures.
Under all the circumstances, I would ask noble Lords to consider carefully the arguments in favour of the clause. I earnestly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I should like, first, to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; namely, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, my noble friend on the Front Bench and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
I have to say that I have not found the Minister's responses to be remotely convincing. He has been extremely economical with his answers. I do not imply the phrase, "economical with the truth", but rather that he has been, quite literally, economical. He has confined himself to certain very narrow technical points and has not offered a political explanation of the clause. He has not put it into any form of political context that makes sense.
I recall a famous story about Lloyd George. He was travelling in a car in Snowdonia and became lost. He pulled down his window and asked a passer-by where he was. The passer-by replied, "You are in Snowdonia". This incident was later often cited by Lloyd George as an example of a perfect parliamentary answer: it was

1267
short, brief, true and told no one anything of any use whatsoever. I am bound to say that I think that the noble and learned Lord is something of a master at that kind of response. In some of the debates which we have had on the Dome, the noble and learned Lord has given us responses that have been wholly accurate but not very helpful. On one occasion, I recall that I asked him directly whether he could tell us what has gone wrong with the Dome. The answer came back that, "There haven't been enough visitors". That, of course, was absolutely true. However, I am beginning to recognise a "Falconerism" when I hear one. All that we have had today are "Falconerisms": technical, factual and straight answers that do not explain anything. For that reason, I think that his speech was unconvincing.
The grounds on which he has chosen to defend the Bill are different from those on which he defended it previously, or at least his arguments have been put in a very different way. I do not think that the phrase "administrative tidying up" escaped his lips quite as frequently as it did during our previous debates. We were then led to believe that this was a matter only of tidying up. Nevertheless, it is true that we have heard a number of remarks along those lines today. Indeed, when my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pressed the Minister on this, he confirmed that this Bill did seek to tidy up an anomaly. In a technical sense we may be tidying up a legislative anomaly, but there are hundreds, not to mention thousands, of legislative anomalies c n which we could spend time in an exercise of tidying up. The question is: why has this anomaly been singled out? There must be a purpose and a political reason for the exercise. Indeed, surely it would not be sensible to tidy up an anomaly until that anomaly had proved to be a problem or until someone said, "The law here presents an obstacle to what I want to do".
The noble and learned Lord has relied on the precedent or the Commonwealth. However, he has not been able to come up with a single example of a Commonwealth Member of Parliament who has wanted to sit in the House of Commons. However, in order to provide for Ireland the same privilege—of which no one has ever availed themselves—we have to have the Bill. Moreover, we have not been told who in Ireland wants to avail themselves of this opportunity by tidying up the anomaly.
In our debate at Second Reading, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord mentioned Sinn Fein. Perhaps it is rather vulgar to wave documents in the Chamber, but I did show the document in my possession in which Sinn Fein has advocated something that fits in well with this proposal. Sinn Fein wants Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies elected to the House of Commons also to be Members of the Dail in order, I submit, that the Parliaments of Westminster and Dublin may appear equally legitimate and equidistant from the problems of Northern Ireland.
We know who does not want the Bill. I know that the First Minister does not want it. He has told me that. I should have thought that that was quite a
1268
relevant consideration, given the delicate situation which pertains and the problems that he has to face. I know, too, from the document which I have just mentioned, that Sinn Fein does want it. The noble and learned Lord sought to justify what is being proposed on the ground that citizens of Ireland could vote in British parliamentary elections. He then sought to try to establish some symmetry between being able to vote in a parliamentary election and being able to stand for that parliament. However, I think that that argument was thoroughly demolished by my noble friend Lord Elton when he intervened to point out simply that the responsibilities of a voter are completely different from those of a representative.
Symmetry can be extended in many directions. If all we seek is symmetry, why has not the noble and learned Lord brought forward legislation to allow Members of the House of Commons to be elected to the Dail? That would further extend the symmetry being sought here. However, at present, a Member of the House of Commons cannot stand for election to the Dail unless he happens to be an Irish citizen. Only Irish citizens are eligible to stand for membership of the Dail.
Many of us object to this proposal because of the nonsense of someone being a representative in two sovereign parliaments. Of course Members of Parliament represent their constituents, but they are also there to further the interests of their country. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne pointed out, there may be times when the interests of the two countries conflict—not, I am sure, as dramatically as in the example given by my noble friend, but I can think of many examples in the field of taxation and cross-border matters where very different views probably would be taken by members of a British government and members of an Irish government. One would want a Member of Parliament to be free from undue and improper pressure, but certainly there would be a conflict of interest in some of those matters.
I have listened extremely carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, but we have to follow the logic of our arguments. My judgment is that our arguments went unanswered. Despite the pleas of the noble and learned Lord, I propose to seek to divide the House. I do so consciously because it is an important matter and the arguments put against the amendment were profoundly unconvincing.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Blatch, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Boardman, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Blaker, L.

Bridges, L.

1269

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Byford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Caithness, E.

Laird, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Luke, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Marsh, L.

Cox, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cranborne, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Elles, B.

Naseby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noakes, B.

Elton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rogan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Strange, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hogg, B.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Warnock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Addington, L.

Dixon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.

Dubs, L.

Andrews, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Falkland, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Geraint, L.

Bragg, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brennan, L.

Goldsmith. L.

Brett, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goudie, B.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grabiner, L.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Grenfell, L.

Chandos, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Christopher, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Hooson, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

David, B.

Hoyle, L.

Desai, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

1270

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Redesdale, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Islwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Roper, L.

Jeger, B.

Sandberg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Judd, L.

Serota, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Layard, L.

Simon, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Levy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lipsey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Maddock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Uddin, B.

Mitchell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Morgan, L.

Warner, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Paul, L.

Whitaker, B.

Peston, L.

Whitty, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wilkins, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Puttnam, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Flooding and Flood Defence
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my honourable friend Elliot Morley. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the serious flooding that has occurred in England.
"I start by expressing the Government's heartfelt sympathy to all affected. Some houses have been flooded several times in the past few weeks. The whole House can appreciate the desperation of those householders affected.
"We do not need to be reminded of the extraordinarily heavy rains that have fallen in recent weeks—and are still falling as I speak. This is an extreme situation. The land is saturated; water is running straight off into already swollen rivers.
"Floods on this scale are rare. For example, river levels in York are the highest they have been for 400 years. The 1947 flood was the last event of a

1271
comparable scale. It was caused by a combination of heavy rain and melting snow and resulted in significant economic damage, but direct comparisons are difficult since there has been much development in the flood plain since then and our defences are much better.
"Happily, and most importantly, we have no reports of people losing their lives in the floods. Of the some 1.8 million properties at risk of flooding, fewer than 4,000 have flooded. Much of the extensive flooding we have seen has been of agricultural land.
"I believe that most flood defences for urban areas have operated to their design standard or better; this includes York, which is being severely tested. This demonstrates the justification for the significant government expenditure over the years. As the House will be aware, there is further rain to come and the prospect of more flooding cannot be ruled out. I will return to the question of funding for flood defences in a moment.
"I have to emphasise that we cannot stop all flooding, just reduce its risk. The recent floods have overwhelmed some defences. It would not have been practicable to have stopped them—it would have required massive walls which, even if they could have been constructed, and afforded, would be unlikely to be acceptable visually or environmentally. Shrewsbury turned down a flood defence scheme a few years ago on those very grounds.
"Having set out what has happened, I want to say what is being done in response. First, I pay tribute to the way in which the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, voluntary services and the Armed Forces have responded to the flooding. They have been working around the clock to ensure that warnings are issued and acted upon, to evacuate people and to shore up defences. I would also like to thank the local media and local radio for their contribution in ensuring that information has been widely and quickly made available. We have seen on television over the weekend the massive efforts being made to combat the floods in York. Similar efforts are going on up and down the country.
"The Government's impression is that these partnerships have worked well, and that flood warning arrangements have also been effective. As the House already knows, when the immediate work has been completed I shall be asking the Environment Agency, in conjunction with its partners, to produce a full report on the flooding, its effects, how the flood warning and emergency response worked, and what lessons we can learn. I shall ask for this speedily, but emphasise to the House that I do not want preparation of this report to get in the way of the immediate work that needs to be done. I ask for understanding on this point.
"My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister made an important government announcement about flooding at the weekend. He
1272
said the Government were improving the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities which incur unexpected costs in response to floods: assistance from Bellwin will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current floods; the rate of government support will increase from 85 per cent to 100 per cent; valid claims will be settled within 15 working days and claims for advance payments can be made. This announcement addresses important concerns that have been put to the Government. The scheme will also be reviewed more generally when the current flooding is over.
"The Government are also committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this, and deal also with problems of insurability for homes and businesses at risk of flooding. When the current problems are over, the Government, local authorities and other agencies will, of course, do everything they can in pursuing the recovery plan to help communities to get back to normal as soon as possible.
"I turn now to funding of flood and coastal defence. The total amount of spending on flood and coastal defence in England from all sources approaches £400 million this year. The Government are by far the largest contributor to this expenditure; in the current financial year, the Government planned to spend some £337 million in England. This is a combination of MAFF funding towards capital projects of some £80 million and £257 million delivered through the revenue support grant administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Revenue support grant is used, among other things, to pay levies to the Environment Agency which the agency uses to fund maintenance and operational costs for flood defences, and the balance of capital works not met by MAFF grant.
"The announcement on the spending review in July this year foresaw that MAFF funding would be increased by £5 million next year, £10 million the year after and £20 million the year after that. In all, MAFF funding was expected to total £267 million in the next three years. We would also expect revenue support grant funding to increase by about 4 per cent a year, in line with the spending review settlement in this area.
"Recognising the severity of the floods, I am sure the whole House will welcome my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a further £51 million over four years—starting this year—for: additional investment in flood defence works; new whole catchment area assessment studies; and making an earlier start to planned improvements in the flood warning system. This is new and additional money for England. Further discussions are in hand about the possibility of extra resources for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

1273
"The further funding is particularly welcome. It will allow us to progress more river-based flood defence schemes. This an issue that the ministry needs to discuss with the Environment Agency. The Government do, however, expect to make an announcement on decisions as soon as possible.
"I ask the House to join me in expressing the Government's appreciation to all those who have been involved in responding to the flooding. I also ask the House to acknowledge the already major investment that the Government make in flood and coastal defence and to welcome the further funding that we are making available to ensure that the risks are reduced for current and future generations".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am sure that the whole House will join her in offering condolences to the families involved, some of whom have been struck twice, so quickly. It is not just a matter of flooding, which is bad enough in itself; unfortunately, on this occasion, sewage and other leakages have occurred, presenting an additional hazard with which people are having to cope. Like the Minister, I should also like to pay my tribute to the many—whether in the voluntary or in the regular services—who struggled to help to relieve the suffering of those families who have been struck for a second time, as well as those for whom it is a first-time experience.
When the Easter floods happened two years ago, especially in Northamptonshire, the Bye Report was published. Although the Minister did not refer to it, I know that that report made some recommendations that I believe have been a help in coping with the current situation. One of the difficulties experienced at that time was the fact that the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency did not act together as one. However, as the Minister pointed out, only 4,000 homes have been affected this time. Of course, that is a terrible number, but it might have been larger had there not been a united front in trying to cope with the current situation. Indeed, we are grateful for that.
The noble Baroness and I discussed a topical question a few weeks ago; namely, the whole question of building on low-lying areas. In response, the noble Baroness said that PPG 25 was in the process of consultation, and was due to be published in December of this year. In the light of that and bearing in mind what has happened again, can the Minister say whether the Government will be giving much closer direction to local authorities as regards consideration of future building in low-lying areas? I understand that the Environment Agency has maps on flood plain areas.
Obviously, one of the unfortunate considerations in this respect—indeed, the Minister referred to this when repeating the Statement—is the position of people regarding their future insurance. It is not just a
1274
question of their current insurance; it is a question of how they will manage, how they can get the money and whether they will be at a disadvantage in the future because they live in such areas. I believe that Hertfordshire and Ashford are particularly affected in that respect. The Government have planned to provide some 1.5 million new homes in the South and the South East. But sadly, as we know to our cost, that area is often subject to flooding. It is an important issue. I wonder whether the Government intend to reconsider that decision.
I support the Government and thank them for the immediate response that they have given through the Bellwin assistance scheme, which will help local authorities straightaway. One of the issues that local authorities often raise with me is the fact that such money is sometimes very slow in reaching them. Therefore, it is difficult for them to cope. I am very glad to note that such claims will be settled within 15 working days. It is most important that that pledge should be delivered.
The Minister mentioned that much of the affected area is farming land. Although our natural, heart-felt concern remains with the families involved, this situation has obviously affected the farming community. Can the Minister say whether any of the money in the existing funds has been allocated to help farming areas that have been subject to flooding? Will the Government be considering what will happen to the sowing of this year's crops, which will obviously be delayed? Indeed, will they be making representations to the European Commission in that respect?
I spoke briefly earlier about the question of new housing. In the past, I understand that the Environment Agency has given recommendations for housing projects to be turned down, but local authorities have over-ruled those objections. Of 190 applications that were made last year, I believe that some 44 per cent were built despite the fact that the agency suggested to the local authorities concerned that they should not be built. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that situation.
York has been mentioned as one of the areas that is direly affected by the floods. I may not be correct in this, but my understanding is that when the York defences were originally built they were meant to cope with 12 feet of flood water, but they have been deluged with 17.8 feet of water. Therefore, for very obvious reasons, when reports are made regarding the current situation, I hope that we shall anticipate higher standards of provision than has been the case in the past. Indeed, after the report is published, I wonder whether the Environment Agency and the Government will consider looking at some of the very good flood schemes that seem to be working; for example, the scheme in Boston, Lincolnshire, which is very low lying, is a case in point. It has not been affected by flooding because it has a very good sluice-gate mechanism on the river before it reaches Boston, with much drainage to support it. Perhaps the Government and the agency will consider favourably those areas with successful flood schemes.

1275
I thank the Minister once again for repeating the Statement. Our hearts go out to all of those who have been affected. I hope that my questions will prove to be of some assistance.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it falls to me to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and to respond to it. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if a wander a little beyond her immediate responsibilities. It is almost impossible to discuss this subject and keep all the issues together in one little box. Like the Minister, we on these Benches wish to express our sympathy with all the people whose homes, farms and businesses have been flooded in recent days—sometimes more than once. They have lost possessions, crops, business materials and the use of their homes, and now face a period of great uncertainty. Equally, everyone must be deeply impressed by the devotion and energy with which the emergency services, the armed services, the local authorities and government agencies have tackled their work of rescuing those who have had to leave their homes, shoring up flood defences and co-ordinating emergency work.
The Statement refers to flood warnings that were given and the Minister expressed some satisfaction in that respect. However, can the noble Baroness say whether such warnings are also accompanied by information as to what to do in the case of flooding? We look forward to reading the report from the Environment Agency, from which it is hoped further lessons for tackling floods will be learned.
We also welcome the improvement made to the compensation scheme to local authorities by the Deputy Prime Minister, especially as regards the faster access to compensation and the 100 per cent government funding. I hope that the bureaucratic means of achieving that aim will be sufficient, because an eight-day turnaround is pretty quick for any letter to Whitehall. Can the Minister tell us a little more about what the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to gain from his meeting with the insurance industry? A rapid response to claims against insurance policies would be very welcome, but will the Deputy Prime Minister also address other problems, such as that of the uninsurable losses that have been sustained; for example, with respect to crops already sown? Further, can the Minister say whether any initiative has been discussed with the Inland Revenue to allow for extended time for payment of VAT where returns have been lost as a result of the floods?
We are all aware that there is a link between the increase in the built environment, especially where building has taken place on the flood plain, and the severity of flooding. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her questions on the issue. The noble Baroness told us about the increase in funding for flood defences projected for the next 10 years. The figures sound large, but they do not, in themselves, enable us to make a judgment of their efficacy and the efficacy of the Government's flood defence
1276
programme. We need more information to enable us to do so. Is it the Government's expectation that the report of the Environment Agency will provide guidance for the prudent and rational action that needs to be taken to help achieve the best and most sensible flood defences? I take on board the comment made earlier that it is almost impossible to defend everyone from every flood that might occur at any moment. My comments should be taken in that context. However, will the report contain some factual estimate of the work that is required so that we can compare that with the funds that will be provided?
There are also worries about the diversity of bodies through which flood defence money is channelled. Can the Minister confirm that, at present, two government departments, the Environment Agency, local authorities, the Crown Estates and other organisations all have powers to become involved in flood defence work but that none of them necessarily has the duty to do so, or to see it through to completion? For example, was it not just that sort of bureaucratic lack of clarity that resulted in delays in vital flood defence work in Lewes? Is not a good deal of engineering and environmental expertise required to make sure that flood defence works fulfil the job for which they have been created?
Are the Government considering setting up a single agency to receive and disburse the funds, and to have the necessary information and technical ability and, above all, the authority and duty to ensure that flood defence works are carried out in a sensible order and to a satisfactory standard?
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken for their general support for the measures we have instigated in response to the floods and for their expressions of sympathy for those affected and of thanks to all sections of the community who have assisted in this situation.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that lessons were learned from the Bye report, certainly in terms of the need for good co-operation and in terms of some of the emergency planning exercises which took place this summer. I believe that those exercises were of assistance in several areas when dealing with the enormous difficulties of the past few weeks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, mentioned the institutional arrangements. She is right to say that they are complex. The important matter is whether they are understood by the bodies involved and whether it is possible or beneficial to centralise responsibilities in only one place. The Environment Agency is the principal flood defence operating authority. It has a duty to supervise flood defence matters and is responsible for flood warnings. It also has to work closely with local authorities which are responsible for emergency planning and for responding to a wide range of emergencies, not only flooding. It is important that we retain a local democratic input in that response.

1277
There must also be a responsibility in this matter on the part of the emergency services. As we have seen over the past few days, they may have to be brought in. As we have also seen over the past few days, it may be necessary to involve the military in these operations. We are looking in particular at funding mechanisms and whether those should be reviewed or streamlined in some way. We keep under review the work of the local flood defence committees and the agencies that are involved. I do not rule out for ever and a day the possibility of change. However, the most important matter is to get all the agencies which are involved working together smoothly and effectively.
As regards flood warnings and information on what to do, I believe that in the main that worked well, although I am sure that it was not 100 per cent successful. I believe that the facility to telephone people automatically when a risk was registered was valued, along with the general leafletting, the helpline number that was issued on local and national weather forecasts and, as I said in the Statement, the assistance given by local radio in alerting people to the danger of flooding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also mentioned access to floodplain maps. Those maps have been made available to local planning authorities. The Environment Agency is considering ways to make them more easily accessible to individuals as this issue assumes greater importance.
The noble Baroness was right to pinpoint the problems posed by the floods for agriculture. The funding I mentioned is basically funding for flood defence. Through the Bellwin scheme, that funding is provided to local authorities and emergency services. However, we have discussed with the NFU some of the issues that pertain to farmers—for example, arable area payment schemes—and are urgently considering what we can do in that area.
As regards tax and VAT returns, my honourable friend said in another place that he would certainly contact the Inland Revenue as regards providing assistance in that regard to businesses affected by flooding.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned taking forward best engineering practice. She mentioned the scheme in Boston. That was effective, but we must recognise that the storm did not affect the Anglia region in the same way as the North East. It is important to learn from experience in this country and elsewhere. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on Saturday that we intend to ask a senior independent civil engineer to carry out a review of technical approaches to flood alleviation in the light of recent experiences both at home and abroad.
The noble Baroness mentioned York and asked whether the "tolerance" levels of defences were adequate. The flood peaked in York at 200 millimetres above the "tolerance" level and the defences held. However, all of us have to consider the standards of flood defences for the future. That relates to the
1278
strengthening of guidance to local planning authorities (PPG 25). As I said in response to the noble Baroness's Starred Question on the matter a little while ago, the guidance is being strengthened. It is already government policy to discourage inappropriate development in floodplains. We intend to issue revised guidance next month which will emphasise in particular the need to move towards a risk-based approach which takes account of the likely impact of, among other things, climate change.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, from these Benches I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I was particularly glad to hear her say that when the Environment Agency's report is received the Government will consider the problem of coastal floods. I am delighted to hear that that is being done. She will remember the remarks we exchanged on that matter not long ago in the House. One of the matters that she mentioned would be considered is insurability. That also arises in the coastal context. I hope that a further matter might be considered which the noble Baroness has not mentioned; namely, the way in which the Government set a financial envelope for the study of coastal problems. That limits the extent to which studies can be carried out. I hope that some change in the procedures may occur as a result of the further studies which are to be carried out.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. We are focused on river flooding at the moment, but it is appropriate also to consider coastal defences in the long term. The noble Lord was right to point out that, in looking to the long term, we need to base our approach on good science and on best understanding of the possibilities for the future. I believe that we all recognise the need for urgent work to address the likely—although no one can say whether they are inevitable or certain—effects over the next years and decades. We are still not certain whether we are seeing abnormal weather patterns which are part of a cyclical exercise or direct effects of climate change. We need to understand that better in order to act appropriately.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that while protection of human lives is the first priority, the Government should review the inadequacy of drainage on our trunk roads and motorways? Is the noble Baroness aware that for over 24 hours a 20-mile stretch of the A1 south of Scotch Corner was closed over the weekend? That caused traffic chaos which must have been hugely expensive to industry, to the transport industry, which has problems of its own, and to many private individuals in cars. There was total chaos because of flooding. It should be a priority to ensure that the drainage arrangements on motorways and trunk roads are adequate to deal with such floods.
Secondly, I turn to coastal defences. Fifteen or so years ago, I was responsible for coastal and flood defences. Will the noble Baroness give an undertaking

1279
that no new money allocated for flood defences will be diverted from tidal defences. Unless things have changed greatly over the past few years, parts of eastern England in particular are still at serious risk from tidal surges.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord's latter point demonstrates how important it is to have local democratic input into establishing priorities, which inevitably will have to be set. Difficult decisions will have to be made in particular with regard to coastal areas. It is important that we debate priority setting. It is easier to have such a debate when there are extra resources available; and that is what we shall have.
I take the noble Lord's point about the importance of drainage on trunk roads. We are all conscious of the difficulties which are compounded with regard to transport. I undertake to ensure that the Highways Agency will be one of the organisations involved in the exercise that will take place when we have caught breath in terms of learning some lessons.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, will the Minister indicate whether the ABI has fallen down on its duties towards insured people? When did the noble Baroness or her fellow Ministers discuss the matter with the ABI? What has been its response? Secondly, what happens to tenants or sub-tenants who are not insured? They would not be covered by the ABI. Have the Government any plans in respect of those people?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are those who are desperately badly affected in a range of ways in these circumstances. Flooding has been an insurable risk in the past. Concern has been expressed that people who have suffered in the current rounds of flooding will not have access to insurance in the future. That is one of the issues which will soon be the subject of discussions between Treasury Ministers and the insurance industry. We are also discussing with the ABI how the insurance industry can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this. We have said that we will operate within 15 days as regards the Bellwin rules. It is important that those who have insurance cover have quick access to the funding which will come through that.
However, my noble friend is right to point out that there are wider issues about the overall affordability and availability of insurance. Those will be addressed.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, will the Minister address the key issue of not allowing planning permission to be given for land subject to flooding. Will not local authorities find themselves in the middle of a clash? On the one hand, they will be given this stronger guidance. On the other hand, the Government have committed themselves to major building of houses in particular in the South East. If local authorities have the courage to refuse permission, can they expect support if there is an appeal?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point although she would not expect me to
1280
prejudge individual appeal decisions on individual planning applications. She fairly points out that there are issues which need resolution. The Environment Agency may give general advice that planning should be refused because development is within the flood plain. In strengthening guidance, we are asking that it be moved to a risk-based approach which takes account of likely impacts. After the experience of the past few weeks, I am sure that local authorities will not underestimate the potential for flooding. But responsibilities for planning applications remain with local authorities. They are the responsible democratic bodies. They have to balance the factors.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, my diocese is in Yorkshire although I am glad to say that Wakefield is not flooded as York so sadly is. Nevertheless, families in my diocese have relatives who are suffering flooding in their homes. One family was enormously distressed, having read in newspapers that the value of its property would probably now be decreased by something like 25 per cent. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond immediately. However, can she assure us of the Government's sensitivity to the difficult financial position of people who may have bought houses in areas where there has been some worry about the wisdom of planning permission?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I sympathise with people who find themselves in difficult circumstances as regards financial responsibility. We have to consider carefully the implications.
One of the lessons learned after the Northampton floods is the importance of getting agencies such as the Department of Social Security involved on the ground, with Benefits Agency staff present from the beginning so that essential Social Fund applications can be met quickly and advice offered to those in distress.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us find reassuring the practical measures outlined in the Statement in the truly dreadful circumstances which people are suffering? The noble Baroness referred to work being undertaken to assess whether the flooding is an unusual climatic condition or part of a longer trend. But many will feel reassured only when they hear the Government put climate change, global warming and the strategic environmental considerations which arise in that context at the centre of all their strategic policy formulation. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the present circumstances—alas!—may be an indication of even worse things to come in the decades ahead.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that we should not assume that recent events are simply a reflection of cyclical weather patterns. We have to build into our defence plans allowances for issues such as sea level rises as a result of climate change. He is also right to say that we need

1281
a strategic overall view, not just a short-term response. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the same points in a recent speech on strategic environmental issues.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a civil engineer. Reference has been made to a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, a few months ago. Does my noble friend the Minister recall that one of our colleagues who is notable in the environmental world expressed the views of many environmental quangos—and possibly those of the Government—pouring what might be called cold water on the idea of hard flood defences and suggesting instead that the right policy was to allow nature to take its course? We have seen nature taking its course and it does not seem quite such a good idea. The Minister may not be able to give an assurance, but will she at least turn her mind towards a policy of extensive hard flood defences throughout the country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is not possible to give an overall blanket response to that contribution. We have to look at the areas concerned. There is a difference between coastal and river defences. The appropriate solutions will not be the same for all coastal regions or for all flood plains. We have to look strategically at the defence of a whole area, rather than concentrating on small localised schemes. We have guiding principles about what is appropriate, but there is no alternative to careful scrutiny of individual areas, their needs and the appropriate responses to them.

Disqualifications Bill
6.3 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Commencement conditional on progress to decommissioning),").
The noble Lord said: The new clause contained in Amendment No. 34 would make it clear that the legislation should not come into force until there had been progress on decommissioning. In view of the suggestion made on the previous amendment that it might dilute my opposition to the Bill, I should make it clear that I oppose the Bill as a whole and do not want it to be passed into law or to come into force at any point. However, one has to proceed on the basis that it might be enacted.
We have already discussed the puzzle of why the Government want the Bill and who else wants it. The Minister said that nobody had asked for it and the Government had thought of it by themselves. When we asked why, he said that it simply corrected an anomaly to bring the situation into line with an unused provision. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, got it right when he said that he found it difficult to understand the Bill and that he felt that we
1282
were meant not to understand the reasons for it. If it is to be enacted, the least that we can do is to try to ensure that the Government get something in exchange for making this concession.
It became clear during the debate on Amendment No. 1, if it was not clear before, that Sinn Fein is the only serious group that wants the Bill, apart from the Government. Are the Government getting anything in exchange? Everyone who is looking for a solution to the Northern Ireland problem wants things from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. In particular, we all want them to renounce violence and the threat of violence as the means to a political objective. Decommissioning is the test of that.
The Good Friday agreement set out a two-year timetable for decommissioning. Well over two years later, nothing effective has happened, apart from two inspections of PIRA arms dumps. The loyalist terrorists have done nothing effective. If the Government want to achieve something through the Bill, it should be decommissioning. Now is the moment to do that and the aim of the amendments is to provide a vehicle for it.
The Government should not agree to anything else—certainly not anything as far-reaching as this Bill—without getting something in return. I was one of many who told the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that she would be unwise to allow the two-year timetables for prisoner releases and decommissioning to be separated. Allowing that separation in the agreement and subsequently has been the Government's key error on Northern Ireland. However, the prisoners are out and decommissioning has not effectively started, so the message to the Government now is that they should not make the same mistake again.
The Prime Minister sometimes proceeds as if it was necessary only to be nice to terrorists and they will be nice to us. If we let their prisoners out first they will soon give up their arms, and for that matter their aims. In fact, the terrorists have seen that and other developments as a sign of weakness and have kept asking for more and more, including the Bill, which was never in the agreement.
Sinn Fein wants the Bill, but nobody else in Northern Ireland does, as far as we can tell—apart from the Government. The message of the amendment is that if the Government must pass the Bill, they should at least get something for it, and preferably decommissioning, because that would be a symbol that the terrorists had begun to look to democracy and not to the bomb and bullet, which have destroyed the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I support the amendment. My Amendment No. 7 has the same aim: that the implementation of the Bill should be conditional.
Our belief that this is an extraordinary measure has been underlined by the interventions of the Minister. If we are to make an extraordinary concession, surely it should be linked to something. My noble friend on

1283
the Front Bench linked the concession to decommissioning and disavowing terrorism. My Amendment No. 7 is similar, but seeks that this part of the Bill will come into force only after the Secretary of State has made a statement that the Belfast agreement has been implemented in all respects by all parties.
It seems to me to be a reasonable demand to make that this far-reaching, extraordinary measure should at least be attached to visible progress. It has been felt that the Government have been sliding and that we are entering an unreal world. I consider that the most unreal moment occurred a few weeks ago when the noble Baroness who spoke from the Dispatch Box told us that we had no idea who had fired a mortar at the headquarters of MI6; I believe that there is hardly a Member of this House who is not pretty sure who fired it.
We are living in an unreal world in which standards are being abandoned and we are making fatal compromises that ultimately may contaminate our own standards. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment and, as an alternative, plead in aid with it my own amendment which relates specifically to the Belfast agreement.
Attached to this group of amendments is my Amendment No. 35, which is of an entirely different nature. I am slightly surprised that it has been grouped in this way. Amendment No. 35 seeks to insert a new clause, which states that:
"This Act shall not come into force until legislation is passed by the [Irish Parliament] removing the disqualification on members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords becoming members of the legislature of Ireland".
In other words, I believe that an argument exists for saying that we should have reciprocity before this measure is implemented. The concession that we are extending to those who are elected to the Dail should be extended by the Dail to Members of the House of Commons.
As I said in my earlier remarks, I believe that the bar on membership of the Dail is not the same. No Irish legislation exists which is comparable to the disqualification legislation in this country. However, I believe that I am right in saying that one can stand for the Dail only if one is an Irish citizen. Of course, a situation may arise in which an Irish citizen who is resident in this country, or an Irish national in Northern Ireland, succeeds in being elected to the House of Commons and then manages to be elected to the Dail.
However, we are extending to all Irish citizens the right to stand for election to the House of Commons. I believe that a reciprocal arrangement should be made before this legislation is passed. After all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, sought to make his (if he will forgive my saying) slender justification for the Bill on grounds of symmetry. Let us have symmetry all round. Let membership of the Dail be available to Members of the House of Commons, which effectively at present it is not.
I know that an objection mentioned in the Minister's brief is that that would require the amending of legislation which would affect other
1284
members of the Commonwealth. We do not require Commonwealth legislatures to allow Members of the House of Commons to stand for the Seychelles Parliament before Members of the Seychelles Parliament are allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons.
However, as we have heard again and again, that is all theoretical. No Members of the Indian, Australian, Canadian or Seychelles Parliaments have ever stood for election to the House of Commons. There is no prospect of Members of Commonwealth parliaments becoming Members of the House of Commons. However, there is a very real prospect of someone in an Ulster constituency in Northern Ireland contriving through this Bill to be elected also to the Dail. The prospect of people being Members of the House of Commons and of the Dail is real. If such a situation is to occur, let us have treatment on all fours. Let us have some of the Minister's symmetry.
Of course, I do not believe that enabling Members of the House of Commons to stand for election to the Dail would justify the breach of the principle. It should not be possible for someone simultaneously to be a Member of two sovereign parliaments. Even if reciprocal arrangements were to exist, I should still find the principle offensive and wrong. However, if the Government, who have their Second Reading, are to proceed with this legislation, I believe that in order to make unsatisfactory legislation a little more equitable it would be reasonable to expect Members of the House of Commons, or people standing for election to the House of Commons, even if they were not Irish citizens, to be treated on the same basis. That is the thrust of my second amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I rise briefly to support the amendment and what has been said by the two noble Lords. I do so because 15 members of my family are Australian citizens residing in Australia. Some of them are closely associated with the political machinery, both of the federal parliament and of the state legislatures. Never in any of my conversations with them have I heard a serious suggestion that any of my 15 Molyneaux connections should come here to stand for election to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, even though some of them could claim a certain qualification of residence.
Viscount Cranborne: It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who, if I may say so, has a wonderful propensity for taking sideways looks at subjects. I do not know what that does for other noble Lords, but it certainly cheers me up.
Rather like my noble friend Lord Lamont, very reluctantly I support my noble friends' Amendments Nos. 2 and 34. As my noble friend pointed out, the objection to the Bill has nothing to do with decommissioning. It is an absolute objection in principle. As I said in my remarks during the previous debate, the objection is that a Member of two sovereign parliaments will have a divided loyalty.

1285
Neither Amendment No. 34 nor, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, Amendment No. 35 does anything to put right that outrage.
However, if the Government were to get their way—I very much fear that they will, in spite of our best efforts to prevent that—I suppose that it is incumbent on us to do what we can to make a bad situation a little better. Therefore, with some reluctance I support the amendment. However, I feel that I have no alternative but to do so.
Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the link to decommissioning which my noble friends made in Amendments Nos. 2 and 34 has a certain logic to it. For those of us who are disappointed at the progress of the peace process so far, I am afraid that it has become a matter of constant repetition to point out that one set of parties to the peace process has signally failed to perform the undertakings which it gave as part of the agreement.
Political parties closely linked with active terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide—both the republican and the so-called unionist side—have failed to surrender one single ounce of Semtex or one single weapon. As government Ministers have repeatedly pointed out—and it was pointed out again in the debates on this Bill in another place back in January—that forms an integral part of the agreement. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said so himself and it is recorded in the Official Report.
It is perfectly sensible for the Good Friday agreement to make the decommissioning of weapons an integral part of any peace agreement. After all, it is surely part of the deal of parliamentary government—and I hope it does not sound patronising because it is common cause between every single Member of this House but perhaps worth repeating—that we do what governments of the day tell us to do, very often extremely reluctantly, because we know that everybody engaged in the parliamentary process will play by the basic rule of the game, which is that, if we are outvoted, we shall go along with it. It is when people who go into administrations without having thrown away the Armalite but still using the ballot box come into play that we begin to wonder whether the game is not being played with a weapon which the rest of us not only do not possess but do not wish to possess.
It is for that reason that my noble friends have been extremely sensible in linking their amendments with progress to decommissioning. I am astonished at their moderation because they refer only to "progress to decommissioning" rather than the completion of decommissioning. That shows how low our expectations have sunk, as my noble friend intimated. Therefore, if we are to do what seems to me to be this outrageous and very silly thing, at least we might get some benefit from it if it is linked to a dedication to a purely parliamentary means of pursuing politics rather than using parliamentary means only so long as they work for whatever faction one happens to belong to. If it does not work, then the implied threat is there that, "They haven't gone away, you know".
1286
For that reason, as I say, reluctantly, I must support that amendment, although it seems to me to have nothing to do with the principal objection to the Bill.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 35 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lamont. All I would say about this amendment is that I feel rather the same way about it as I do about Amendment No. 34, as I believe my noble friend does as well. There is nothing to remove the principled objection which many of us have to this legislation but at least this encourages him a little further down that virtuous path of his addiction, which is rather sudden, to legislative tidiness.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned the federal parliament in Australia. Let us take that as an example. How does the noble and learned Lord think that those friends and relations, with their federal parliamentary connections, would feel if the Government of Australia suddenly presented this Bill, changing what has to be changed for Australian circumstances, to the Parliament of Australia, saying that it would be possible to be a Member of both Parliaments if one were a United Kingdom citizen? We know that if you are an Australian national you can, at the moment, be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I have already made clear that I deplore that matter as a relic of imperial times which needs correcting. But let us say that the Australian Parliament were presented with this Bill, suggesting that one could be a member of the Australian Parliament and a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.
I spent an extremely happy year in Australia when I was 17 and 18 years-old, in the south west of Queensland. I am sorry to say that I have never been back to that wonderful country since, much to my dismay. But when I was there I learnt that Australians, even back in 1963–64, were beginning to have a very powerful feeling of their own nationality and the pride that goes with it. Even then, they were beginning to object to what I think became known as the cultural cringe.
In the wake of the Olympics, Australia has become increasingly self-confident and proud, and rightly proud, of its status as an independent nation. The idea that a mirror image of this Bill would be acceptable to the people of Australia seems to me to be so absurd as not really to require any further discussion.
So if it is right that the people of Australia or the people of other Commonwealth nations feel that way—and I am sure they would if presented with a Bill like this—and if, as my noble friend implied, a non-Commonwealth parliament, the Dail, might feel the same way, and there is no evidence to show that it feels any differently, if presented with a similar piece of legislation, why is it right that we should accept it?
It is purely speculation, but my only suggestion is that perhaps this is a hangover from imperial times when it seemed as though this Parliament were somehow greater and more important than other national parliaments and, therefore, we could afford to take a broader view and everybody would become privileged to become part of what would be a sort of

1287
imperial parliament. Indeed, if that is so, we go back to the days of Joseph Chamberlain, since we are clearly in the business of historical reconstructions today.
One only needs to ask oneself that kind of question to realise that what has become manifestly and increasingly obviously an absurd position for the Government to take is absurd even if one accepts the principle of the Bill, which I do not, unless Amendment No. 35 is accepted. I should prefer that our first amendment had been accepted but since that was not possible, I suppose we must try to make do with something which is at least a minor improvement on what is already an outrage.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will comment on another dimension to this matter. It was said in the other place that we had consulted the Irish Government and hoped that that consultation would reflect also the views of the parties. But how do the interests of the Dail in all this square with the position which the Taoiseach has taken since January—and perhaps it is a new development—when he said,
"for Sinn Fein to take part in a government with Fianna Fail",
which is, after all, what the Dail is frightened of because, although Sinn Fein has only 1 per cent of the vote in the south, that is likely to change,
"it would need to resolve its relationship with the IRA, as Fianna Fail did in the past, at the time of its formation".
He added that.,
"any government formed here would have to be in conformity with Article 15.6 of the Constitution which requires that there be only one Army raised",
by the state.
If that is what he thinks, I find it surprising that he should wish to see anything done which would promote and advance the strength of Sinn Fein/IRA. When the Minister replies, I should like to know whether any further consultations have taken place since January with the Irish Government to take cognisance of that. That seems to me to be a reasonable concern on their part and equally on ours. If we have a government in the south which is heavily penetrated by Sinn Fein/IRA, we are all in trouble, not least the Taoiseach.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the fact that I did not hear the whole of his opening speech, although I think I can guess what his arguments were.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 which go to the substance of the debate. Obviously, everybody wants decommissioning to happen. However, it is not helpful or sensible to link this Bill to decommissioning. It seems to me that that would be going off on a tangent which is neither helpful to the cause of the Bill—I appreciate that the amendment is not intended to be—or to the cause of decommissioning. In this place we have found on a number of occasions that decommissioning has been linked to other issues. That is not helpful.
1288
Decommissioning must happen because it is right in principle and not because we seek to link it to other issues that are before this place.
I have some sympathy for Amendment No. 35. I remember from my time in the other place the discussions on reciprocity as regards the right to vote of British people living in the Republic. It took some time for the equivalent right to the right of Irish citizens to vote in elections in this country to be granted.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that he has put his finger on an important point? The argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for allowing Members of the Dail to stand for election in the UK was, to some extent, based on the fact that Irish people living in this country could vote. He tried to argue that if they could vote, they should be able to stand for the House of Commons. By that argument, if, thanks partly to the efforts of the noble Lord, British people are now able to vote in the Irish Republic, by the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, they should also be able to stand for election to the Dail.
Lord Dubs: I understand the point but I think that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench got it right. Reciprocity may be desirable. However, I believe that the way to achieve that is to pass this Bill and then to enter into negotiations with the Irish Government. Noble Lords laugh. However, that is precisely what happened on the right to vote. We had the right to vote for Irish citizens living in this country for many years. Then, I believe in the 1980s, we sought to engage with the Irish Government for a similar right. That is the way it happened then. It is no good noble Lords laughing. To my mind, that is the most sensible way for things to happen here.
However, I am bound to say that whatever protestations have been made from the other side about the fact that, "We are against the principle but if we fail to stop the principle, let us do it this way", the debate has rather weakened the argument in principle to which I listened before the Statement. It seems to me that if the case in principle is as strong as has been maintained, it is somewhat weakened by compromising in this way. Noble Lords opposite sold the pass on their own arguments before the Statement.
Lord Laird: As a Member of this place who resides in Northern Ireland, perhaps I may take the opportunity to raise a number of issues.
There was discussion earlier about the fact that members of the Commonwealth and citizens of the Irish Republic could vote in UK elections and that therefore it must follow that people could stand in UK elections. The point is that the people who are categorised to vote have a residency qualification. They live in the United Kingdom. It seems slightly unlikely that a Member of the Irish Parliament would he resident in the United Kingdom. So the argument is difficult to sustain.

1289
I would ask the Committee to consider the effect of this type of legislation in Northern Ireland. As Members on this side of the Chamber have said, according to the Belfast agreement, there seems to be parity but some people appear to get more than others. We come back to the point where Sinn Fein/IRA and sections of the Dublin government are not fully implementing the Belfast agreement.
I listened with considerable interest when the Minister referred to the good relationships with the Government of the Irish Republic since the Belfast agreement. I am sure they were good even before the Belfast agreement, and I do not see why they should change now. However, while we are implementing the Belfast agreement, there are elements of the Dublin government which are not. I shall return to that subject later when we debate another amendment. It is not a case of rewarding them or giving them sweeties because they are doing the right thing. It is not even a case of giving sweeties to Sinn Fein/IRA because it is doing the right thing; it is not. It is not decommissioning. The only people I can see who are implementing the Belfast agreement in full are those in the party to which I belong; that is, the Ulster Unionist Party, and the people around us. It does not come naturally to us to be part of cross-border implementation bodies, but we are prepared to do that as part of the Good Friday agreement.
However, when we ask for understanding, help or support that might keep our community satisfied with what is going on, we are assured that the Belfast agreement is for them as well as for the nationalist community. We do not seem to make headway in the debate on the police Bill, nor in any other debate, or we make limited headway. I do not wish to take away from the help given to me personally by the Minister. I recognise that he has been extremely helpful on issues. However, government as a whole have not been helpful in playing their part in implementing the Belfast agreement and allowing us in the unionist community to bring along our community, which is an important element. As stated in this place only two weeks ago, if we do not have the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, we do not have a peace process.
Perhaps noble Lords could ask themselves what this kind of legislation is doing to the base support; the people who rally round the leader of the Unionist Party.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The substance of these four amendments makes the commencement of the Bill conditional upon three things: first, substantial progress on decommissioning; secondly, agreement by all parties to the Belfast agreement that all aspects of it have been implemented; and, thirdly, Irish legislation removing the disqualification for membership of the Irish legislature which applies to Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
As I made clear in the debate before the Statement on the floods, the position is that we put the Bill forward on the basis and in the light of the improving
1290
relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. For all the reasons I have indicated before, it is appropriate that the anomaly be removed. I do not put it forward, nor has it ever been put forward, as being a part of the Belfast agreement.
The first two amendments in particular do not relate to the subject matter of the Bill, but rather seek to delay the Bill coming into force until actions not related to the Bill have been taken by others.
As I indicated, this Bill is about promoting better relations in these islands—north and south but also east and west because the provisions affect the assemblies and the Scottish Parliament as well. To make these desirable and modest changes dependent upon action to be taken by paramilitary organisations would be inconsistent with the principles we are trying to advance. Similarly, to make commencement dependent upon a decision by all the parties that all aspects of the Belfast agreement have been implemented would delay the Bill for reasons which have no relation to the development of British-Irish relations.
I deal with the proposed amendment to the laws of the Republic of Ireland. There is no disqualification, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, explicitly acknowledged, in Irish legislation on the basis that one is a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords in this country. However, one must be an Irish citizen to vote or stand in an election to the Dail in the Republic of Ireland. But we are not talking about that aspect of electoral law; we are talking of disqualification from membership.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would have no effect because there is no sort of disqualification along the lines of his amendment. To say that we remove the disqualification that exists under the law of the Republic of Ireland to be a Member of the Dail if one is a Member of the House of Commons would not mean anything because there is no such disqualification. In those circumstances, there is reciprocity in relation to grounds for disqualification of members of the respective legislatures; what there is not is reciprocity in relation to the right to vote in elections to the Dail as opposed to the right to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
But this Bill does not deal with that; it deals with disqualification from the legislature. For that reason, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the third condition sought to be imposed is wholly inappropriate. In those circumstances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 35 to a Division, though I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for recognising that it has a certain logic.
I recognise, as the Minister said, that the amendment is perhaps not correctly worded because there is no specific disqualification on a Member of the House of Commons being a member of the Dail. But in Irish law there is an effective means of stopping most

1291
Members of the House of Commons from standing for the Irish Dail; that is, that one must be an Irish citizen. One cannot be a British citizen and stand for the Dail, though one could have dual nationality and stand, which may be a means by which some people will stand in the north and also stand for the Dail. My amendment is not illogical. It may be imperfect in its wording. But it is entirely logical, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
As regards the noble Lord's points in relation to Amendments Nos. 7 and 2, I understand the argument that it is not appropriate because it links a different matter. But it is not entirely inappropriate to link a different matter when no reason of any kind has been advanced for this mysterious legislation that none of us understands. That is the unanimous view of everyone who has spoken, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who did not speak on the first amendment. No explanation has been advanced for this Bill, other than the flimsy one of "tidying-up". Nonetheless, I shall not press Amendment No. 7 to a Division.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, apologised for missing my first few words and I entirely exonerate him from any blame in that respect. But he did thereby deprive himself of the opportunity of hearing me say very fiercely that I object to the whole Bill. But the fact that I object to the whole Bill does not disbar me, if I may say so to both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, from discussing the details of the Bill.
Lord Dubs: I did not suggest that it would disbar the noble Lord. I suggested that it weakened the cutting edge of the point of principle made in the earlier debate.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the noble Lord regards it in that fashion, then no Committee stage would ever take place. It is an absolutely absurd construction of parliamentary debate that cannot survive. If the fact that one objects to a Bill means that one is not allowed to discuss the details without being accused of weakness, then we can pack up the whole Committee stage of everything. Perhaps that is part of the Chief Whip's plan. Maybe others are trying to install that idea. I know that some wish to downgrade the Committee stage but that would destroy it completely.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord for giving way again. I appreciate how Committee stages work. I understand his argument. But I have seldom heard on the first amendment in a Committee stage of any Bill such protestations about fundamental principles as I heard on the first amendment we discussed today. It is for that reason I made the point; not because of the general proposition that I am against both detailed and principled objections.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall not pursue the point except to express the view that I am glad that our
1292
fundamental objections got over to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the first debate; they did not seem to get over to the Minister.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also suggested that it was not helpful to the cause of decommissioning to link the amendment to anything else. That drew me back to the debates we had at the time of the Belfast agreement and shortly afterwards when we attempted to make a close linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning I still believe, as I said a few moments ago, that the failure to do that was a key error on the part of the Government in dealing with Northern Ireland matters.
I will not add to what my noble friend Lord Lamont said in relation to Amendment No. 35. However, if a Bill were presented to the Dail removing the limitation that only citizens of Ireland can stand for the Dail and, when the Minister in the Dail was asked who wanted it he was told that the British Government asked for it, that would not be very satisfactory.
I turn to the amendments. This is a matter of fundamental importance. For that reason the Government should not give this Bill away, which is what they intend to do, for nothing in return. The suggestion is that there should be decommissioning. There are two versions on offer. I admit to my noble friend Lord Cranborne that my version is more moderate than that of my noble friend Lord Lamont. I thought it might help to attract the Government to this course of action. Clearly, I was mistaken. They see it as a sign of weakness. And if I may say so, that is exactly how the members of Sinn Fein see the Bill. That is exactly how they see the release of prisoners—as a sign of weakness. That is why it is no good continually giving away things—this is one more example—and expecting the terrorists to say, "Oh, they are nice people after all. We will drop our aims". They will not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 4:
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ("provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly").
The noble Lord said: No doubt I shall be told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that I am linking something that should not be linked. I am doing something which is absolutely outrageous: I am asking that before someone takes their seat in the House of Commons, as a Member of the Dail, they should disavow terrorism. What a terrible thing to ask! I am linking the most outrageous demands with this most outrageous Bill.
But the noble and learned Lord cannot say that I am interfering with a process. What I propose should be perfectly consistent with the peace process. Indeed, I believed that the original provisions of the Belfast agreement were that those participating should

1293
disavow terrorism. I understand that to be a Minister in the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly it is necessary to disavow terrorism. If it is so in order to be a Minister in the Executive, it seems a very reasonable requirement that one should also disavow terrorism before taking one's seat either in the House of Commons or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that provision can apply to Ministers in the Executive, why should it not apply to Members of the Assembly as well?
There are many provisions in other countries to which one might refer. The United States of America does not admit a person with a visitor's visa if they have a murder or a terrorist conviction. Only a few days ago we heard a Foreign Office Minister say that she thought it totally inappropriate for people who had been connected with the Milosovic regime to play any part in Serbian politics. We were laying down the law as to who should participate in the democratic politics of Serbia regardless of the wishes of the new president and politicians in that country. My noble friend Lord Cranborne made a very pertinent intervention. He asked whether we were really going to pursue that policy even though it threatens the political stability of Serbia. How can we preach to other countries about who should be involved in their politics and not impose minimum requirements ourselves in disavowing violence? This amendment represents a very small linkage to make. It is a very reasonable request to ask that if we are to have this extraordinary measure for which no justification has been advanced, we should at least demand that those who will sit in the House of Commons or the Assembly as well as in the Dail should have explicitly rejected terrorism. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will have made his calculations. He will be aware of the fact that currently there are two representatives claiming to be representative of so-called loyalist paramilitary organisations. I am not certain that the establishment—by that I mean the dreaded Northern Ireland Office—would particularly relish the expulsion of those two Members of the Assembly. If that were done, the majority would be lost and the whole house of cards would collapse.
Viscount Cranborne: I support these amendments. It may be uncharacteristic, but I wish to ask the Minister but one question. Can he tell the House what conditions the Dail itself imposes on its Members not only in regard to the rejection of terrorism, but also what oaths have to be taken and checks made on Members of the Dail before they can become Members? If we are to do this foolish thing, it would be very reassuring for us to know that certain good housekeeping measures had been taken by the Dail itself so that we may find exact reciprocity between the two parliaments.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to know whether we can rely on the Government to apply the
1294
Representation of the People Act, which disqualifies anyone who has been detained for more than a year for any offence or who is unlawfully at large at any time when he would otherwise be detained? Anyone in that situation is precluded from becoming a Member of Parliament. Are the Government meditating setting aside that ruling, because I cannot see any member of Sinn Fein—IRA who is at present in the frame for this not qualifying under that description as excludable? It would be very interesting to know whether legislation is now being thought about while the Prime Minister has his bath, which might remove that provision in order to make life easier for everybody.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support Amendment No. 4 and speak also to my Amendment No. 5, which is of similar import. I shall not dance around the differences of detail in the wording of the amendments. We are trying to achieve the same thing. I do not believe that either my noble friend or I is concerned to push the precise wording on the Government.
This is a very important point. I referred earlier to the possibility of Mr Pat Docherty standing in the West Tyrone by-election and subsequently for Donegal. The activities of Mr Docherty are extremely well documented in the public record as a leading member of the Provisional IRA over a large number of years. He has been very active in, and a senior member of, that organisation. I am not saying anything new. I am not seeking parliamentary privilege to make some great accusation. It is perfectly well documented in all kinds of publications.
The possibility indicated by this amendment is not a theoretical proposition at all. It might be an immediate one. Terrorism and democracy are incompatible. If democracy is to survive, it should not admit terrorists into its ranks. There are plenty of examples throughout the world where former terrorists have come into government and have made good leaders of their countries, but only after they have firmly relinquished rule by the gun and the bomb. That is the purpose of these amendments. I agree with the opinion of the Taoiseach quoted to us earlier by my noble friend Lady Park. Terrorism and democracy are not compatible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments would retain disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Assembly, which disqualification would otherwise be removed by the Bill in respect of any Member of the Irish legislature who has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and has not disowned terrorism within the meaning of that Act. I do not believe that there is any need for me to go through the list of the organisations.
As regards the approach in the Bill, I return to what I said at the beginning. It is intended to make the position of the Republic of Ireland the same as that of Commonwealth countries. In that regard, there are provisions in the Bill setting up the Assembly and provisions in relation to the House of Commons relating to other disqualifications. They will continue

1295
to apply as before. It is not intended to differentiate between the position of Members of the Dail and that of Members of any Commonwealth legislature.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, rightly identified, these amendments try to link to this Bill the one thing the Bill is not about. The Bill reflects the good relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It deals with the anomaly identified in the first debate in Committee. It would be contrary to this purpose to impose a new disqualification in relation to Members of the Republic of Ireland legislature which did not apply to any other body to which the right of dual membership applied. On that basis, it is contrary to the principle which underlies the Bill.
As regards the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Committee will know that all its Members are members of parties which have indicated that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. Therefore, in relation to the Assembly, there is already in place a provision which meets many of the points made by Members of the Committee.
7 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Am I not right in saying that there is a requirement for Ministers in the Executive to make a specific declaration about having disavowed terrorism?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that there is and I will check the precise details. Those in the Box are nodding that that is correct. However, I am going further than that because there is a requirement for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which goes beyond The Executive, to be members of parties which have indicated that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
There are three further questions which I must answer. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether the Irish Dail imposes conditions in relation to terrorism. It imposes no disqualification provisions in relation to membership of a proscribed organisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked about the Representation of the People Act. I am not acquainted with the provisions to which she referred but I can make it clear that there is no intention to change the provisions of that Act.
In the light of what I have said, it always comes back to the same propositions coming into conflict in the course of the debate. We say that the move is sensible and modest, not related to the issues to which Members of the Committee seek to relate it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I agree with one thing which the noble and learned Lord said; that we always receive the same reply from him. We have just heard that it always comes back to the same thing; he tells us what the Bill does and then says that we should not link it with anything else. It may have occurred to him that that is what amendments to legislation do; they link legislation to other things. That is the whole
1296
purpose of amendments. They can sometimes achieve the precise objective, making it a little more easily, but sometimes they also introduce related issues. It is not an extraordinarily outré idea that an amendment should establish some linkage to something. The noble and learned Lord should not look so shocked and surprised and believe that I am the first person ever to propose an amendment which links something to something else.
The noble and learned Lord has not made much of a case. He conceded the point that Ministers in the Assembly make a specific disavowal of terrorism. If Ministers in the Assembly have to do that, why should not Members of the Assembly do that—or why at least should not Members of the House of Commons have to do that? It does not seem an unreasonable request. My noble friend Lady Park argued that that is how the law ought to be applied in any event; it is what we have come to expect.
It seems—if I may have the Minister's attention—to be a reasonable request. I see that I do not have his attention. Perhaps we are negotiating the dinner break, which according to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have already had. I wish only that we had! It is not outrageous to suggest that there should be a disavowal of violence.
I am afraid that this is all just part of the very shabby, contaminating compromises which are being made and which I believe will one day come back to haunt us. I do not believe that you can make compromises of this kind without there being undesirable consequences in the long run. However, the Minister is sitting there and Ministers have responsibility for this. After what he has said, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved]
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 6:
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) At the end insert "is a Minister in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that no one who is a Minister in another country should be a Member either of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not give the same reply by saying that it attempts to link the Bill with an unrelated matter. It seems to me to be a closely and clearly related matter. It seeks not to go off at a tangent to an unrelated subject but to narrow down the number of people who would be able to sit both in the Dail and in the House of Commons or in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that the amendment was tabled in another place by the First Minister for Northern Ireland. He was unable to be present to press his amendment or to speak to it, but he thought that it was important. Some of us are concerned that his anxieties and interests are being ignored. I know for a fact that he does not relish nor is enthusiastic about the Bill. I believe that if I cannot

1297
persuade the Minister of the merits of an amendment he ought to take seriously something which has been proposed by someone to whom the Government are deeply indebted for what he has done to keep the whole show on the road. If he has given so much and has kept the show on the road, I believe that the amendment he tabled in the House of Commons should be taken seriously.
It does not seem to me that it would be a good idea for a Minister in another country to be a Back-Bencher in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the House of Commons. It seems to me that that would lead to a conflict of loyalty, as does the whole Bill. The conflict of loyalties is that if you sit in a sovereign Parliament you represent your constituents but of course you have national interests in mind. In addition, often the function of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament is to sustain a government or to bring a government down. That is where there could be a clear conflict of loyalty.
Having read the account of the debates in another place, I know that the Minister went so far as to say that he thought that some people in Northern Ireland might be better represented if a Member of the Assembly were also a Minister in the Irish Government. I found most extraordinary the suggestion that someone would be better able to represent their constituents by being a Minister in one government and a Back Bencher in a parliament in another country.
It would be easy and consistent with the Bill to make the disqualification. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 disqualifies a number of public office holders. Disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons are holders of certain judicial offices; High Court and Court of Appeal judges; civil servants, whether or not established and whether or not full or part time; members of the regular Armed Forces; full-time police officers; and, as we have been reminded, members of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth. If all those people can be disqualified, why cannot we also have a disqualification for a Minister in another country? That seems to me a simple, clean amendment. It does not go off at a tangent nor relate to a matter which is unrelated to the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise briefly to support the amendment. We have heard that the Government have been anomaly spotting and have discovered one particular anomaly, which is the subject of this Bill. However, I believe that my noble friend has spotted another anomaly of potential importance. It is only of potential importance if the restriction on members of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth, or permission for Members of the New Zealand Parliament and so on to sit in our Parliament, arises. It is quite likely that it will arise if the Government believe that it is real enough to extend
1298
it to Ireland. Therefore, the anomaly which has been spotted by my noble friend should be eliminated by means of his amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: I support this amendment. My noble friend has also done a service to the Committee by raising this matter. After all, if those who object to this Bill suggest that where one is a member of two sovereign parliaments there is a conflict of interest, how much greater is the conflict if the person concerned is a Minister in either a sovereign parliament or an assembly which is subsidiary to it? Therefore, the basic objections must apply in spades. Surely, if only as a matter of degree, the noble Lord will see that here there is an objection in principle, and I hope that he will acknowledge that in his reply.
As a spin-off to this particular amendment, perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether it is theoretically possible for a Minister in the Irish Government to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps the Minister can say whether he finds it even sensible to consider rejecting this amendment which prevents the possible entry of a Minister when the House of Commons Disqualification Act excludes, for example, members of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Staff Commission for Wales and the Child Support Appeals Tribunal for Northern Ireland. It is extraordinary that no one is worried about excluding those people but is anxious to include people who have no relevance whatever to the interests of the country.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rogan: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 7A. In so doing I should like to make a few general remarks about this piece of legislation. I, too, am against the entire Bill. However, I hope that that does not preclude me from explaining my particular objections to parts of the Bill as it passes through Committee. I made clear my objections to the Bill during Second Reading in July, and my view has not changed. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I again ask whether the Bill is still important for the so-called choreography in Northern Ireland.
I was pleased to hear earlier the assurances given by the Minister that it is not within the Belfast agreement. Just as one cannot cherry pick that agreement, one cannot add to it without the full agreement of all its signatories. As it stands, Clause 1 would amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and permit members of the legislature and Ministers of the Government of Ireland to sit in another place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are all aware that potentially only a small group of individuals could ever benefit from this extension, and probably they would all be in the same party. Amendment No. 7A is designed to ensure that those who hold office in the Government of the Republic of Ireland as Ministers,

1299
junior Ministers or committee chairmen will remain disqualified from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons.
Why do I wish to do so? One returns to the question of a potential conflict of interest. To sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament may be a demanding task; it may not allow one to devote as much time as one wants to each, but it does not give rise to a conflict of interest. Any person, however, who sits in a devolved, national and supranational assembly can do so knowing that the interests that he represents are the same. But the same cannot be true of a person who seeks election to two sovereign national parliaments, or to a sovereign national assembly and, simultaneously, to a devolved assembly of another sovereign nation.
I oppose the clause in its entirety. This amendment may be insufficient. However, like the noble and learned Lord's description of this measure on Second Reading as a modest Bill, this amendment is modest. It aims to remove the inevitable glaring conflict of interest which will arise and is completely consistent, at least with respect to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Minister will not listen to the views of those who oppose this clause in its entirety, I urge him to consider what I term my modest amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): These amendments would create a new disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendments Nos. 6 and 39 would remove the existing right of some members of Commonwealth legislatures to stand for election and sit as Members of the House of Commons and the Assembly. Amendment No. 7A has a slightly different effect: it seeks to prevent Irish Ministers or committee chairmen from serving as Members of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Bill, with the amendments that we have tabled, will disqualify Irish Ministers and the chairmen and deputy chairman of Irish parliamentary committees from holding office as Northern Ireland Ministers or as chairmen or deputy chairmen of statutory committees. I hope that Members of the Committee will take that point carefully into account. We believe that our amendments are well directed and precise in their effect. The Bill is designed to prevent conflicts of interest that could otherwise occur if a Northern Ireland Minister or chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly also held office as a Minister in the Irish Government or chairman or deputy chairman of an Irish parliamentary committee.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: A minute ago the Minister said that the Bill as proposed would not allow a Minister in the Dail to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He went on to talk about the chairmen and deputy chairmen of subject committees also being disqualified. However, is that not subject to the amendments that the noble Lord is yet to propose?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Obviously, that is the case. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the amendments.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Surely, it is quite wrong to describe a Bill in certain terms before we have reached amendments which are found way down the Marshalled List. The Minister has given a completely incorrect description of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Technically, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have not yet reached those amendments, but they are before the Committee to consider. We are trying to make progress with this issue. I accept that the noble Lord has a particular view. We have tried to meet some of the earlier concerns with regard to the legislation. The amendments reflect those concerns. The same conflict of interest would not apply if a Minister of a government of another country were to sit as a Member of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Existing legislation does not prevent that.
Members of the Committee have asked questions to which I shall try to provide a response. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether a Minister in the Irish Government could be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The answer is yes, but not as a member of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that that clarifies that point.
This group of amendments takes us no further. We have met most of the points with later amendments. Although I understand some of the concerns surrounding this part of the Bill, I can see no good reason for the amendment to be pursued.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I have to say that I do not find the Minister's reply particularly persuasive. But we have been over this ground and he has returned to the core argument that has been deployed throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Obviously I am not making any progress with our point, which is shared by a number of Members of the Committee, about the conflict of loyalties and about undue influence in this most extraordinary Bill. In those circumstances, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 7A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to reply to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He made some reference to it, but I do not think that he replied very fully. The noble Lord asked about the contrast between the position of the European Union and the situation that we are now moving towards vis-à-vis the Republic of Ireland.

1301
In the debate on Amendment No. 1, the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to the lack of symmetry that so offends the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that we should open up membership of the House of Commons to Members of all the parliaments of the European Union. A Member should be allowed to be a member of the Bundestag or the Assemblée as well as of the House of Commons. That is restricted at the moment. The Disqualifications Act specifically disqualifies people from being Members of the House of Commons if they are Members of a European Union legislation.
However, that raises the question why that is not judged to be discriminatory legislation and how it is consistent, as is stated on the front of the Bill, with the Human Rights Act 1998 and with convention rights. I almost raised this point at the start of Committee stage, but I thought it would be rather disruptive before we even reached the first amendment. As it has been raised once already, but not fully answered by the noble and learned Lord, it would be a service to the Committee if he could give us a fuller explanation of how the clause is not discriminatory and how it complies with convention rights. Obviously this is a matter that has been fully considered.
Viscount Cranborne: There is a very powerful temptation, which I shall endeavour to resist, yet again to conduct a Second Reading debate on clause stand part at Committee stage of the Bill. Indeed, it is also a temptation to try to reiterate all the arguments that have been expressed by the doubters on all sides of the Committee during today's proceedings. Members of the Committee will no doubt be relieved to hear that I have no intention of so doing.
I wish to set on record my disgust at the Bill and what the guts of it in Clause 1 contain and at the way the Government have brought the Bill forward and the extraordinary way in which they have proceeded to manage its passage through both Houses of Parliament.
There is one explanation for the Bill which my noble friend Lord Lamont has given and which has been explained with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Cope; namely, a secret deal has been done with Sinn Fein/IRA. It was alluded to by the delightful phrase used by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms on 27th July when he said that this was all part of the "choreography" of the negotiations surrounding the agreement.
That is one explanation. But perhaps lingering in the background to the Bill, and adding to a fear that has lingered for a long time in the minds of the majority of the inhabitants of the Province of Northern Ireland—I speak as someone who has been interested in Northern Irish matters for over 20 years—is the thought that somewhere in Whitehall and among certain politicians there is only one solution which appeals to them to the so-called "Northern Ireland problem". That solution is that at the very least the Province should be pushed
1302
into a situation where there is joint authority over it by the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom.
I hope and believe that was not the intention of the government of whom I was a member. We have assurances from the present Government that that is not their intention. This piece of legislation will revive those suspicions in their most extreme form in the Province. Even if we thought that in principle Clause 1 was desirable for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I have already made it clear, I hope beyond peradventure, that I do not think that they are desirable—that purely in terms—I use the word advisedly—of the choreography of the politics of Northern Ireland, this is ill advised. In a province where confidence is lacking, the Bill will undermine what little confidence there is left among the Unionists that they can trust the Government of the country of which they are still a part.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to give the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, assurances with regard to the policies and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It is important that that should be done at this juncture.
I get the distinct impression that there are grave reservations in the Committee over the clause with which we are dealing. I know that some Members of the Committee, for obvious reasons, cannot give voice to their concerns. For my part, I fear that a Bill containing the clause that we are debating will remain a very large blot on the statute book of the United Kingdom.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I do not, of course, wish to make a Second Reading speech and so I shall confine myself to the provisions of the clause. We are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, back to the question that I asked him some time ago. Who has asked for the Bill? When the noble and learned Lord replied that it was not appropriate to ask that question, noble Lords on all sides of the Committee greeted that response with the levity it deserved. In my short time in the House I have not heard anything approaching the guffaw that that response elicited.
The noble and learned Lord has said that it is the duty of a government to set out the case for any proposal—to set out their stall, as it were. No doubt it is. It is also the duty of any government to explain whether a need is being met which has been voiced by any political party, government, advocate or supplicant of any substance or significance. Will the noble and learned Lord answer this question? Are the Government still wedded to the concept of transparency? If they are not, his response to my question was at least consistent with that change of position. If, on the other hand, they are, how can he conceivably justify his claim that it is inappropriate to ask as much who is for the Bill and who has asked for it as it is to ask who is against it and who has expressed

1303
those views? In the interests of parliamentary government, without being too solemn about this, I do hope that the noble and learned Lord will answer those questions.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Some shrewd and important questions have been asked of the noble and learned Lord and I look forward to hearing his answers to them. I rise only in case the noble Lords, Lord Dubs or Lord Desai, should take silence as consent to Clause I standing part of the Bill. It is far from it. Clause 1 embodies the nub of the Bill. I believe that it is a dangerous measure and offensive to democracy.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to the possibility, to which I had alluded earlier, that the Bill reflects a secret deal with Sinn Fein or others. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that the Government are walking blind into this trap; that is what it is if they are getting nothing for it and it is not the result of any deal. I have sufficient respect for the intelligence of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not to think that they are walking unseeing into the trap. I believe that he would have seen through it. That is what makes me think that something else is going on.
Throughout the proceedings, as has been made clear by speakers in the past few minutes, the noble and learned Lord the Minister has been attempting to present the Bill as if it is some kind of sealed package that is to be seen in total isolation from the surrounding political and security circumstances and in total disregard, for that matter, of those consequences Only a lawyer could think that that is a relevant and sensible proposition. Most lawyers would not advance it because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has made clear, they see further than that. It is an offensive clause in an offensive Bill.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may speak for a few moments. I appreciate that we are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. As has already been said, it is not a Second Reading debate. But there is surely one key issue. Our relationship with Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland's relationship with us and Northern Ireland's relationship with the rest of Ireland are quite unique. Because Northern Ireland is in such a unique position there are times when unusual measures need to be brought forward. That is the nub of this debate. Northern Ireland has a relationship with the Republic of Ireland that is different from that which any part of the UK has with any other foreign country. That is reflected in many aspects of the Belfast agreement—the North/South bodies, the Council of the Isles and many other measures. The position is surely not so anomalous as to say that it is inappropriate that Clause I should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That may be so. But it is not the argument used by the noble and learned Lord the Minister. As a matter of fact, it is an argument with which I do not agree in this case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. He is right. I did not deal with the point of whether the Bill is discriminatory vis-à-vis either the European Convention on Human Rights or our EU obligations. As he rightly said, the matter has been carefully considered. It is not contrary to any of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or in relation to our obligations under the EU treaties. Every country has the right to determine its own constitution, including membership of its legislature. It is for each individual member state, whether a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights or a member of the EU, to determine the provisions in relation to that. The Disqualifications Bill determines conditions pursuant to which someone may or may not become a Member of the United Kingdom legislature. That is something which we as a Parliament are entitled to decide. We are quite satisfied that the Bill does not offend against any of our obligations under either of those legal regimes.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, sought assurances that there is no parity between the Dublin government and the Westminster Government in relation to the governance of Northern Ireland. Of course I give that assurance. The noble and learned Lord knows that we have made it clear. It is enshrined in the Belfast agreement and it is enshrined in legislation that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom subject to the exercise of the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland. That does not change.
In reply to the other points that were made, they come back four-square to the debates we have had on all the other amendments. The Government believe that they are entitled to have the Bill judged on its merits by the legislature. The legislature must decide whether it thinks it is an appropriate Bill. I have said why we think it is appropriate. In relation to the question, "Who asked for it?", I have said that that is not an appropriate question. I say that it is for the government of the day to decide whether it is appropriate to promote legislation and then to let the legislature decide. That remains my position. I therefore commend Clause 1 to the Committee.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he has been courteous enough to advert to my question, though he found it impossible, I fear, to answer it. But he has left unanswered one question that I asked him. In these circumstances, are the Government still able to claim that they are wedded to the concept of transparency?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course we remain wedded to the principle of transparency. It is for this House, in concert with the House of Commons, to decide the merits of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Arts and Entertainment in a Multicultural Society
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they consider the arts and entertainment are keeping pace with advances towards a multicultural society in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by paraphrasing a line from "As You Like It":
"Sweet are the uses of diversity".
Full participation in the arts by all in our new and richer society who wish to share in them and have the talent to do so should be one of the paramount concerns of multiculturalism.
I prefer not to use the expression "ethnic minority". We are all "ethnic", although I have not noticed the rest of us being referred to as belonging to the "ethnic majority". Instead I shall speak of "black" and "Asian" as terms that are, I believe, preferred by all.
I turn first to that branch of the arts where little fault can be found; that is, to the writing of fiction. Without the contributions of black and Asian writers over the past 30 years, our fiction would be very much the poorer. I am thinking primarily of Salman Rushdie, one of the brightest jewels in our crown. He is the winner of the prize called the Booker of Bookers. Five other black or Asian writers have also won the Booker prize since its inception in 1969. Six out of 30 is far in excess of what would be expected, even taking into account that Commonwealth writers are included. The young black writer, Zadie Smith, is currently the only British citizen whose novel is short-listed for the Guardian prize for a first book.
But not only should the practitioners of creative writing be considered. We have also to look at the content of fiction. Here that percentage is inadequately reflected. Too many novels contain no black or Asian characters, except peripherally. They are often portrayed as poor, socially excluded, or even—in that good old Hollywood tradition of 1930s movies—in a menial capacity.
Certain groups have been traditionally denied a presence in literature and theatre in times past. Notable here is a working class, who appeared in fiction and drama only as servants, criminals or clowns. Jewish people were commonly depicted as moneylenders, pawnbrokers and Fagin-like villains. Since these groups rose to full participation, often taking precedence over those once considered higher up the social scale, black people have come in to fill the gap. Only quite recently have they begun to appear as
1306
real members of society, leading lives that do not necessarily involve drug-peddling and downright criminality, or there only as the victims of racism. Even so, contemporary black and Asian experience of work, education, religious faith, friendship and relationships still remains largely unrecorded.
But since art should never be controlled by the state, directives to novelists and playwrights to employ more black and Asian characters and situations would be unacceptable. Encouragement is another thing altogether. Those attending creative writing courses, whether at universities or at weekend seminars, might be encouraged to look at the society in which they live and understand that realistic writing today is incomplete and old-fashioned unless it aims to give a recognisable picture of multi-ethnicity. Such encouragement could well begin in schools where black and Asian children, taught to see themselves as equally British citizens as their white classmates, might also be inspired to see themselves as equally capable of contributing to British art and entertainment. I believe that already in many schools at primary level children do meet minority artists who come to speak to them or engage them in projects aimed at showing them their potential. Nevertheless, of the first £2 billion spent on the arts from the National Lottery, no more than around 0.02 per cent was allocated to organisations representing black and Asian artists.
Black citizens of the United Kingdom, in particular those of Afro-Caribbean descent, understandably cast up their eyes when told in that terrible cliché that, "You people are so wonderful at song and dance". Like most clichés, it holds more than a grain of truth, but the patronising implication is that black Britons are not much good at anything else. That is a curious conclusion to draw when we consider that a recent winner of the Turner prize, Chris Ofili, is black, and that another of our most distinguished writers of fiction and for the stage is Asian, Hanif Kureishi. In the theatre we also have, among many others, the Afro-Caribbean playwright, Mustapha Matura, along with the Asian playwright, Tanika Gupta. At present, a black actor is playing Romeo in London (with the Montague family members also black) and another is appearing as Hamlet. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a performance of "Julius Caesar" at the Young Vic in which the conspirators Trebonius and Cinna were played by black actors.
Darshan Singh Bhuller is the distinguished Asian dancer and choreographer, while the saxophonist and composer, Courtney Pine, is the black musician who has done the most for jazz in Britain to redeem it from becoming museum music. He has also inspired and promoted young black musicians, forming the Abibi Jazz Arts Group to encourage young players at a time when the form, which of course has Afro-American roots, had become the preserve of white players.
Next summer, a black arts festival will be held in London on the South Bank. But only one major arts centre presently exists promoting African, Asian and Caribbean art in the United Kingdom. This is the Birmingham-based The Drum, a modern centre staffed entirely by black and Asian people, providing

1307
courses for aspiring artists and holding exhibitions such as, for example, "Millennium—Dawn of a New Age"—a culmination of work by six young African Caribbean artists as well as another on Arts Education and the New Technology. The Drum is based on the site of the former Aston Hippodrome. It houses two auditoria and an exhibition space, as well as a café and shops.
Projects of this kind are needed in other parts of Britain such as London and other major cities—in particular those with large black and Caribbean populations. There is no theatre building in Britain run by a black or Asian director, while theatre staffs and boards are overwhelmingly white. Only 16 out of 463 board members of English Producing Theatres are black—not even approaching 6 per cent, a figure we are told is the percentage of black and Asian people in our population. The Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn has eight, Stratford East five and Hampstead two, leaving only one black board member for the rest of the country. Once there were 18 revenue-funded black and Asian theatre companies, but now there are only two. Funding here should be a priority. All but 80 of the more than 2,000 staff with permanent employment in English theatres are white. We look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Alli on how television is affected, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on the subject of film.
Of course it must be remembered that many British people of black and Asian origin favour integration rather than a distinctive place for themselves in the arts. To them the idea of exclusivity, as in the case of The Drum, represents ghettoisation and detracts from, rather than furthers, their aims. Perhaps they are being a little premature. The time will come when British black and Asian people are so established in our society, their presence so comfortably adjusted to both by themselves and the majority, that a black man playing Hamlet will no longer give rise to the comment, "But Hamlet was a Dane". A black Dane will be, if not as common, as appropriate as a white one, because he would be so generally seen and accepted.
But that time is not yet. It will eventually come about by gradual means and these should not be hampered either by apathy or lack of funds. Meanwhile, there is an irrefutable case for the encouragement of black and Asian artists. This can be a two-way process that benefits them by fulfilling their needs, and inhibits racism by the presentation of black people as having gifts in the arts equal to those that we are used to seeing exhibited by white contributors. It cannot be rushed, but nor should it be retarded. Are we getting there fast enough?
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing the debate. I congratulate her on the way in which the Unstarred Question is worded. The debate is not simply about the arts and entertainment but about their relationship with our multicultural society.
1308
No one disputes that Britain is a multicultural, multiracial and multireligious society. Ethnic minorities make a valuable contribution towards the social and cultural life of this country. There is a recognition among the general public of this cultural diversity and of how the arts and entertainment play a significant part in it. London is probably the finest example of where the arts and entertainment react positively with a cosmopolitan capital city. No one can dispute that minorities have excelled in this sphere. However, there are dangers of stereotyping.
Ethnic minorities contribute across the spectrum in various ways. It was a wonderful sight to see our black athletes, draped in Union Jacks, displaying their Olympic medals and singing the National Anthem. That, effectively, showed their identity with this country. The cultures reflected in the arts and entertainment represent the deepest values held by minorities.
But before we get carried away, I should point out that the contribution of minorities is not matched by essential resources. Perhaps I may ask the Minister two or three questions. The complaint that one receives most often from ethnic minorities in this country concerns resources. The noble Baroness was right to mention that of the £2 billion spent on the arts from the National Lottery, no more than 0.02 per cent was allocated to organisations representing black and Asian artists.
The first major report of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published in 1999, made no reference in its overview to the issues of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity in modern Britain. Despite its equal opportunity policy, not a single ethnic minority person has been identified in the top 20 posts in the department.
Finally, at senior decision-making level at Channel 4, ITV and BBC, there are fewer black people now, in the year 2000, than there were 10 years ago. There must be an explanation. I hope that the Minister will provide it.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Rendell for raising this important question.
In June of this year, I was privileged to give the Greenwich Memorial Lecture in memory of Stephen Lawrence, Rolan Adams and Rohit Duggal. In that speech I made it clear that I believe that we have much work to do if we are to ensure that Britain's black and Asian population is properly represented at the most senior levels in our society. I highlighted, in particular, the senior Civil Service. I still passionately believe that reforms are urgently needed.
But government is not the only place where reform is needed. My industry—television—also has a long way to go before it is truly representative of Britain's ethnic communities in terms of both on-screen talent and those who make up the workforce behind the cameras.

1309
My company—Carlton Television—has a particular responsibility because 70 per cent of Britain's ethnic population live in our franchise areas. It is a young and growing population. While we in the ethnic communities make up 7 per cent of the UK population, it is estimated that we will make up 30 per cent of the population in London by 2001 and 12 per cent in the Midlands. At Carlton we have recognised that we would be failing ourselves and our audience if we did not address the diversity of our own regions. Diversity issues and our economic interests are beginning to coincide.
On 12th October this year we launched the Cultural Diversity Network. At that launch, all of Britain's broadcasters set out their action plans in detail, with specific aims and targets. At Carlton, we set tough targets to change the make-up of our workforce to match the population of our regions. At the BBC, Greg Dyke pledged that he would search for new minority talent. On behalf of ITV, David Liddiment said that it will integrate cultural diversity into the commissioning process for network programming.
An impressive array of senior figures, including Michael Jackson, the chief executive of Channel 4, and David Elstein of Channel 5, have committed themselves to taking action. All of this was co-ordinated by my colleague and friend at Carlton, Clive Jones.
To get this degree of unanimity between organisations which normally fight one another in an increasingly competitive market-place, was a substantial achievement. They all agreed that the time had come to take real action. We can build on that approach. It is a model which could be extended into all areas of the creative industries.
Black voices are beginning to be heard in television, and creative black and Asian artists are gaining recognition. But I do not believe that Britain's ethnic minorities are making headway at senior levels in our museums, our galleries, our libraries, our theatres or the arts boards. The challenge to both local and central government, and to the arts world generally, is to learn from what we are trying to do in television.
Will the Minister consider the ways in which grants are distributed by his department to the arts, libraries, museums and cultural organisations? I believe that in future they should also have a cultural diversity strategy in place so that their management teams and staff reflect the regions in which they work. Will the Minister also consider how best to use funding mechanisms to that end? Finally, will he consider his own department to ensure that it too is trying to change and that it leads by example?
There is no better time for us in the minority communities to make advances, and there is no better group of people in government than my noble friends and my honourable friends in another place to help us. I wish them the best in helping us to do so.
7.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I welcome the debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing it. My diocese of Wakefield is a multifaith, multicultural diocese in Yorkshire and these issues are pertinent to me in my ministry.
For many centuries, of course, much art and entertainment in this country has been inspired, sponsored or provided by the Christian Churches. The fact that Christian themes remain powerful, at least in terms of our cultural identity, was clear from the success of the "Seeing Salvation" exhibition at the National Gallery.
But the Christian Churches—now, thankfully, becoming more racially aware—are relearning a truth that ought never to have been forgotten: that from the earliest times Christianity itself has been multicultural. Its great theologians—Athanasius, Augustin, Cyprian—all of them, and many others, were black.
A modern example of vibrant multicultural Christian diversity was seen in Wakefield recently at our racial justice service, when a wonderful range of music, art and poetry was contributed by our local Asian and Afro-Caribbean congregations. But—this is the point—those contributions took their natural place alongside the English ingredients. Thus, different cultures, enriching each other, were integrated into an authentic spiritual wholeness without losing their distinctiveness.
My experience of engaging personally with these issues locally in the Wakefield diocese leads me to ask for some assurances from the Government. I ask, first, that in their efforts, which I warmly welcome, to strengthen multicultural opportunities in the arts and entertainment, they will recognise and affirm the importance of the religious dimension in cultural expression; and, secondly, that the Government will do all that they can to prevent minority communities becoming slotted into stereotyped cultural boxes. That is a real danger, especially as we move into a new era of digital broadcasting and dedicated channels. Different cultures need to engage with, and thereby enrich, each other. When that happens—I see it happen often—local community relations are enormously enhanced.
I must mention a highly creative south Asian arts group in West Yorkshire called Kãlã Sãngãn. It wants to establish a community-based centre in disused mills. However, there is a competing bid to convert the mills into an employment call centre. That may bring more employment to the area, but it will not contribute to the cultural and artistic regeneration of the local community in the way in which Kãlã Sãngãn does. Therefore, the last assurance I seek is that the Government recognise the problems of finance and infrastructure in building up arts and entertainment at the important local community level, and that that sometimes has implications for funding priorities in urban regeneration areas, which are, of course, themselves so often multicultural.
8 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the future of cultural diversity in our country. Our culture is, in its broadest remit, who we are, our values, how we interact and socialise with each other, and the communities which we want to belong to and promote.
And who exactly are we, in modern Britain at the end of the 21st century? We are a mixed bunch. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we have a capital which is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities, with an artistic life that reflects cultures from every continent. Our regions are bursting with cultural diversity. My own area, the West Midlands, is rich in the sheer range of the cultural life that is on offer—from the excellent production presently being staged (this is an advert) at the Birmingham Rep, "Ramayana", celebrating Diwali; to Sampad, the specialist Indian dance company, which is presently engaging and entertaining Caribbean audiences across the West Midlands; to the activities of The Drum, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, the largest arts centre dedicated to those in the black community, who are excelling in the culture that is on offer; to the famous award-winning youth dancers in the West Midlands who excel in traditional Irish dance.
The creative industries across my region and across Britain are the new growth areas in our economy. For once, it is young Asians and young black people who are beginning to be the mainstream of those new creative industries, leading the new media, leading in design, music and film, and in computer software. I am told that the latest British export to the EU is "funky, electro Asian break-beat", with drum and bass and garage implications! So a great deal of excellent cross-sectional activity is taking place, reflecting our multicultural society.
But is it enough? Of course it is not—not given the level of national spend, as was mentioned earlier. It is not enough while there is racism and bigotry and fear of difference. It is not enough when we cannot satisfy those who are in poverty and who experience social exclusion. It is not enough while the arts are still seen as an élite playground for a small number of people.
However, the Government are taking major steps forward; that must be recognised. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what initiatives will be built upon in those major steps. I refer to the regionalisation of lottery spending; bringing local decision-making down to local level; the creation of the regional cultural consortiums—I chair the West Midlands regional cultural consortium; bringing back the priorities of local people to their local areas; the insistence by government that the cultural sectors work in partnership with each other, that heritage and art work together, that sport and museums work together. That is important. The Government are picking up and running with this baton. They have made a start. I am sure that we shall hear from the Government Front Bench that the continuation of that approach is being strengthened.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Rendell and other noble Lords that the multicultural agenda can be powerfully advanced through the arts and entertainment. I congratulate my noble friend on tabling this Unstarred Question.
While cultural diversity has been a policy objective of this Government for some time, we still have a long way to go in finding pragmatic solutions so as to encourage the process through which minority cultures can thrive. It is unclear how decisions are made; which minorities should or should not receive funding and encouragement for arts and entertainment.
A possible model for a way in which non-governmental groups can take a lead in the promotion of minority cultures in the public arena is a policy initiative undertaken by a Jewish think-tank, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. I declare an interest as its deputy chairman.
The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, in partnership with a French institution, is currently setting up a European foundation for Jewish culture—a kind of European-Jewish arts council. We decided on Europe because, increasingly, artistic activity is international; it flows across international boundaries. However, I think the formula is right, with or without the European dimension.
The institute's mission will be to foster artistic creativity and achievement and to encourage access to Jewish culture across Europe. This will be pursued primarily by awarding grants to creative artists and researchers who are working in the area of Jewish culture. The foundation will consider arts and entertainment in the broadest sense—not only artists, writers and musicians, but also museum and theatre directors and those working in other cultural entertainment sectors such as radio, television and film, and even the Internet.
Two important principles have been established. First, grants will be made to both Jewish and non-Jewish men and women who wish to comment on the Jewish experience. That is because all artists can directly address the concerns of different cultures. In their own distinctive way, artists and entertainers can and do affect the manner in which minorities see others and how others see them. Secondly, we expect the results of their work to be seen principally al non-Jewish venues. In this way, the results will be available to the widest possible audience and, most importantly, will not ghettoise Jewish arts and entertainment. This is a crucial consideration. This seems to be the right approach, because it has already attracted funding from a number of charitable and other sources.
I believe that this initiative can make a distinctive contribution to British culture, while at the same time strengthening Jewish collective identity in Britain. This is not a shrill demand for recognition. It is empowerment.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I was particularly pleased to learn that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, had tabled this Question on the arts and entertainment in a multicultural society. I thank her most warmly for raising this issue. I have a particular interest in this area, having chaired the Arts Council of England's committee on cultural diversity from 1995 to 1998—years in which the foundation was laid for some far-sighted initiatives in this area.
The committee, with the help of an exceptionally able Arts Council officer, Naseem Khan, realised early on that promoting the arts in a multicultural society is more than a matter of equality of opportunity or of funding, important though both are. The notion of equality of opportunity in the arts tends to preserve the fiction of separate development—and it is a fiction. Increasingly, we are seeing a world in which art forms and artists are interacting and coming to create new, fluid forms of culture that are distinctly British—multiculturalism at its best. I welcome these developments, as I welcome also the nurturing of traditional art forms. Funding limits the argument to simple, quantifiable sectors and takes no account of quality of life and the impact of the arts.
The committee on cultural diversity sought to establish a dual principle. On the one hand, the so-called established "mainstream" needs to open its doors. It is unacceptable that the upper management of virtually all our major cultural institutions—absorbing large sums of public money—are worse than the commercial world at diversifying their staff at levels of management and influence. We cannot say that we have a multicultural society, surely, until people from minority backgrounds can find jobs in all areas of the arts: as managers of orchestras, directors of arts centres, theatre directors, gallery administrators, and not simply in what I call "ethnic slots". In this respect we are not keeping pace with advances towards a truly multicultural society.
Secondly, we understand the enormous need of the black, Asian and Chinese arts sectors to have access to skills enhancement, mentoring and networking facilities, as well as a fair share of the cake in terms of national and regional funding. I am pleased to say that our advice was heeded. The Arts Council has committed itself to a major initiative, Diversity 2002, through which it intends to achieve a "step change" for cultural diversity, recognising the historic imbalances that have held back its vibrancy.
So we can say that we have made progress. However, I am troubled to read that a mere £500,000 has been allocated to this initiative by the Arts Council. It is a pity that this enormously important initiative is not properly funded. The Year of the Artist, which I strongly support, has been allocated £3.5 million, with £35,000 to each region. We live in a society in which diversity is adding enormously to the sense of national energy and a national profile that impresses many in the rest of Europe. The Government should be putting their full weight behind initiatives such as Diversity 2002—this is an opportunity to level the playing field—so that
1314
audiences of our major producing houses mirror the population more closely, the workforce diversifies and the arts themselves break loose from the old shackles. This rare and welcome opportunity, which has been built on sound thinking, should not be lost.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh for bringing this debate to the attention of the House. When my children were growing up, I used to spend wet Sunday afternoons taking them to museums. It suddenly dawned on me that there was no museum in the capital where they could see works of art by black artists—people who reflected them. I also realised that tourists were coming into the capital and that they, too, could see no such work. It angered me. So, with £600 from the GLC, I decided to launch an exhibition in Covent Garden called, "The Alternative Tate".
The exhibition ran for one week. I was told that, at the opening, 13 members of the board of the Tate at that time had attended the exhibition. To their credit, I have to tell noble Lords that, from then on, they did in fact show paintings in the Tate by black and ethnic minority artists. They continued to send me letters telling me that they were doing so. I was very grateful.
Today, however, I wish to confine my contribution to terrestrial television. This is the mode through which minority groups, like the rest of society, access entertainment, the arts, news and other information. So television is a good yardstick with which to measure how far arts and entertainment keep pace with the diversity within the United Kingdom.
Ethnic minorities are currently believed to constitute 7 per cent of the UK population. In London, it is estimated that ethnic minorities will make up 30 per cent of the population by the year 2001, and the figure for the Midlands will be about 12 per cent. An estimated 80 per cent of ethnic minorities are aged between 16 and 35, with a huge disposable wealth contributing £32 billion to the economy. We now have evidence to suggest that those of Afro-Caribbean and Asian decent are deserting terrestrial television in record numbers. Clive Jones, the Chief Executive of Carlton, has said:
"With the fastest growing section of the audience switching off from terrestrial television broadcasters must adapt or risk becoming increasingly irrelevant".
Before discussing the work of Britain's leading broadcasters to improve the representation of people from ethnic minorities in television, I should like to pay a special tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality for its support for the Race in the Media Awards. That applies especially to Richard Jarman, the Head of Public Affairs, at the CRE, who said:
"A society that is truly at ease with itself and ready to take the benefits of its diversity requires a media that is able to address and reflect that diversity freely and confidently".
It is in that spirit that I also pay tribute to Manifesto 2000, produced by the Cultural Diversity Network (CDN), which received the support of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 12th October of this year. I am sorry, I did not realise that I was

1315
running out of time. I shall conclude by saying that Manifesto 2000 has set up the same "old hat" ways of increasing minority participation in the arts. Perhaps I have lived for too long, but it just has a touch of déjà vu about it. I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he looks most carefully at set-asides for the various minority groups in terms of finance, so that they can grow within their own communities and then contribute to the rest.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, this evening I am wearing my culture and my art on my sleeves, as noble Lords can see from the opulent colours of my clothing. In the absence of proper government strategy, many of the communities have to do so. I just thought that I should demonstrate it in this way, but that is not to say that I do not do so every day.
The cultural fabric of a multifaith, multicultural and multiethnic country like Britain should always, like the human heart, be in motion. A static cultural life is lethal for the life of any nation. The report, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, points out that we should start with questions that Her Majesty's Government need to answer when making cultural policy. For example: who should or should not receive funding for artistic and recreational activities and projects? Whose experiences, perceptions and stories should be included, how should they be included, and how should they be included in the narratives and images that appear or television and in the press? Who should have opportunities to develop skills in various competitive sports, and to represent their neighbourhood, town or country?
I could go on with those questions; for example, who should, or should not, be represented in the collections of art galleries and museums, the repertoires of theatre companies, and the programmes of local arts centres? The decisions on such questions are taken by a wide range of governmental and private bodies at national, regional and local levels. I do believe that they are representative. They inherently reflect and perpetuate views of the past—embodied in such terms as "heritage", "canon" and "mainstream"—at the same time as they fashion the present and lay the foundations for the future. Funding and resourcing policies should consciously address issues of cultural recognition, inclusion, identity and belonging and, therefore, question many customary criteria of quality and aesthetic value.
Nothing threatens the civility of a society more than ignorance. Arts and entertainment are weapons that, held in the right hands and used with the right attitude, can destroy the beast of benightedness. As a mother, I crave a healthy cultural context for my children—a context that would not only appreciate and respect their Bengali/Bangladeshi/Muslim cultural heritage, but one which would also enable them to share it with their friends and neighbours. Unfortunately, that remains a frustrated dream because we have not had the courage to work towards and create such a context. For example, investment into Islamic arts and entertainment has been abysmal. The result has been
1316
to deny our children and our whole society the civilising effect of this rich cultural and spiritual heritage.
I shall not comment on the question of funding because that has already been addressed. However, we do not need only to re-think new approaches of inclusiveness; we also need to rethink methods of funding. This greater inclusiveness now needs to be extended to embrace Britain's diverse communities and the lifestyles, experiences, identities and creative work of its newer citizens.
It only remains for me to tell noble Lords that I visited Portcullis House today as part of the celebrations for Islamic Awareness Week. It would be a good starting point if the Minister were to consider displaying examples of calligraphy and Islamic art, among others, to give a clear signal that we are committed to multicultural and multifaith art and
entertainment.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing this interesting topic. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness who said that I would speak on the problems of ethnic minorities with regard to film. However, that is a rather complicated subject in view of the limited time which is allocated to our speeches. Suffice it to say that recently the traditional centres of film-making in the world have spread out to unexpected areas. No longer does Hollywood dominate as it did in the past. More and more countries are now becoming international centres of film-making of great repute.
I hope that noble Lords will attend the cinema more frequently as there is so much interesting international fare on offer. Not much of it is shown in London but at the moment there is available a film of the utmost intelligence, delicacy and skill from Hong Kong which I believe would be the envy of any film maker in America or Great Britain entitled "In the Mood for Love". It is a slender story but is recounted with extraordinary skill in telling a story through pictures, which is what cinema is about. It tempts one to think that with the increasing numbers of Chinese in England we shall witness a great emerging talent in that area and probably among other ethnic minorities too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, asks whether,
"the arts and entertainment are keeping pace with … multicultural society in the United Kingdom".
Of course, that is not the case although it may be the case in London, Bradford and Bristol. Certainly in London, where the ethnic minorities now comprise 30 per cent of the population—I understand that figure will rise to 50 per cent shortly—there is a great deal of activity, regardless of the fact (this has been pointed out in, I believe, the rather misunderstood Parekh report) that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by an oversight I am sure, failed to make any direct reference to multicultural activities in London.

1317
London Arts, the regional arts body under the Arts Council of England, does an enormous amount of work in London within a constrained budget to encourage all kinds of artistic expression such as theatre and writing. The amount of lottery money is pitifully small in this regard.
The role of broadcasting in this country is essential to encourage the arts and aid the growth of a genuinely multicultural Britain. I suggest that it is only through broadcasting that one will be able to promote the interesting and innovative works of our ethnic minorities. That is being done to a certain extent but if I understood correctly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, it needs to be done with much more energy and with much broader scope. I hope that the noble Lord will refer to that when he replies to the debate.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. However, I am sure that we all regret the fact that we are allocated only three minutes in which to speak on such a vital issue.
The importance of diversity has been highlighted by my right honourable friend William Hague on a number of occasions, most recently to the Society of Editors last month. He said:
"Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Celts, Picts, Saxons, Angles, Normans, Jews, Huguenots, Indians, Pakistanis, Afro-Caribbeans, Bengalis. Chinese and countless others. These are the British people, all of them. It is what makes our country such an exciting and varied place to live. So we are proud of our ethnically diverse culture".
My main question for the Government is the following. When they prepared their reply to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, what method did they use to measure the extent to which the arts and entertainment have already, and should in the future, keep pace with advances towards a multicultural society? How will they answer that vital question with which the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, ended her speech—are we getting there fast enough?
The important thing surely is for Britain's diverse communities to participate in mainstream arts and entertainment but without losing their own vital identity and culture. Noble Lords have mentioned some examples of good practice. I wholeheartedly congratulate those who have made progress. However, as noble Lords on all sides of the House have pointed out, there is so much more that must be done on race equality issues within the mainstream.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, that part of the answer to making better progress must surely be found in our lifelong education and how we learn to perceive the value of diversity. It is vital that our schools address all these issues. I shall be rather parochial tonight and refer to the Bishop David Brown School at Woking where I live. That school is working to achieve designated status as a specialist performing arts college. It promotes positive participation among girls and boys from all cultures in
1318
a town where about 10 per cent of the population has a Pakistani background and which also has significant Chinese and Italian communities. All of those populations are vibrant.
I visited the school earlier this year to see the work that it is doing. Drama gives students the opportunity to discuss racism, prejudice and bullying. Work across the whole curriculum gives students the chance to develop self-esteem, motivation and personal achievement. I wish them well. Their success serves our multicultural community well.
Of one thing I am sure; namely, that it is extremely difficult for the Minister to respond to the Question, even with his slightly longer speaking time. On a more serious note, it is vital for all of us as individuals to champion mainstream values that everyone can embrace, such as tolerance, mutual respect and the rich diversity of our country. We would all be the poorer without them.
8.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this extremely well informed and passionate debate on a subject which I believe everyone agrees is of enormous importance not just to our arts and entertainment but also to our society as a whole. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for making it possible.
However, I must start by disagreeing with her slightly. I agree with her that it is unfortunate to talk about "ethnic minorities", and I do not intend to do so. However, she chose to refer instead to "Black or Asian". I suggest that the diversity goes a good deal wider than that. I refer, for example, to Greek and Turkish Cypriot, Irish, Balkan people, Jewish people—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred. Even within the term "Black and Asian", I do not think that it is sufficiently recognised how different a Black African from west or east Africa is from someone from south Asia or China or from the Caribbean.
I take my starting point from the word "diversity". The differences between these different communities and their arts are as great as the difference between them and the older communities who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, have been absorbed into British society over hundreds and probably thousands of years. It is the full variety and richness of our national identity which I want to see reflected in our creative and cultural activities. I want to see that applied all the way through our educational system, through our amateur arts and through the professional arts too. From the point of view of government, my starting point must be that if we are talking about resources and funding we must talk about them in total and then about the division for particular purposes.
In July, we announced the highest-ever levels of public support for the arts in England. Funding for the arts will rise from £238 million in 2000–01 to £338 million in 2003–04. The uplift will go to the Arts Council of England for allocation to its funded

1319
organisation, primarily through the English regional arts boards. Among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, made proper reference to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, repeated the statement which I first read in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that only 0.02 per cent of the first £2 billion Arts Council lottery funding went to fund Black and Asian organisations. I do not contest that figure; neither do I defend it. Those were decisions taken before this Government came into existence. At that time, it is fair to say that the first priority was for capital infrastructure work after many years of neglect. I hope that it can be shown—I am not capable of doing so now—that that capital infrastructure expenditure in the first few years of arts lottery funding is open to artists from all ethnic origins.
However, there has been a substantial change in the policies of the Arts Council of England. The new six-year capital lottery programme is allotting at least £20 million to fund Black and Asian organisations covering new developments, theatres and individual projects. This will feed into the new major initiative of Diversity 2002.
A number of noble Lords made effective reference to the underfunding of the arts, in particular Black and Asian arts. I believe that the funding is there. I believe that it will be directed correctly. I listened carefully to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield said about finance for infrastructure, which is recognised, and the need for proper funding priorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke of her excellent 'work in the Arts Council. She will know that Naseem Khan to whom she referred is now doing excellent work in collaboration with the Council of Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, spoke of her "alternative Tate Gallery" in Covent Garden. The noble Baroness will know that three out of the four Turner short-listed artists in the Tate Gallery are not UK born. So funding clearly is of enormous importance, and I think that we are responding.
I turn now to the entertainment part of the debate and what we call the "creative industries". That is far less industrial than it sounds. We are talking about the opportunities which exist in a multicultural society to encourage young people to be more innovative and creative and to use their skills for creative and cultural industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked how we measure whether we are responding adequately. The answer is that there is no strict measure, but I have pages of lists on the creative industries—advertising, architecture, the arts, craft, design, fashion, film, computer and video games, music and the performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio—where it seems to me as an outsider that multiculturalism comes naturally; there is not the same distinction that sometimes exists, regrettably, in the formal artistic institutions. Many speakers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Rendell and Lady Crawley, referred to the way in which our creative industries are heavily multicultural, and quite right too.
1320
We have made it clear to the Arts Council of England that it has to respect cultural diversity. It has to commit itself, as I believe that it has done, to prioritising cultural diversity. I have referred to the Arts Council of England initiative, Diversity 2002. Throughout that year projects and events will bring lasting benefits to communities throughout England. It is also the year of the Queen's Golden Jubilee and of the hosting of the Commonwealth Games. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, referred to the fact that only £0.5 million has been allocated to that. I assure the noble Baroness that that is only the first step. That represents the set-out costs. That is not what will be available in the end. The noble Baroness should not contrast the figure unfavourably with the funding for the Year of the Artist.
Some wise words were spoken about broadcasting. Last year, Chris Smith called on the ITC, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the BBC to review the way in which broadcasters represented diversity issues and lifestyles in their programme making and in their own operations. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, is right to say that that is a matter of self-interest for them when they consider the considerable part of their audience who are affected.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the Cultural Diversity Network which launched action plans in October to encourage the modernisation of the portrayal of ethnic minorities in mainstream programming. All the broadcasters have committed themselves to turning plans into action. Again, I was glad to hear from the noble Lord. Lord Alli, about the plans of his company, Carlton. To take another example, Channel 4 will be raising its target for employees from ethnic minorities from 9 per cent to 11 per cent by 2003; and for senior employees to 8 per cent. It will create six posts for Black and Asian production staff on a fast-track programme to producer. It has instructed producers to include diversity information in all programme proposals.
That applies also to the DCMS. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, made that point; it is fair. I am not entirely satisfied with what I am able to say to him about that. It is true that Paul Udenze from the Drum in Birmingham, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, will know, has been in the department shadowing the head of arts. It is true also that in the arts division of the DCMS we have had one of the 15 fellows under the ACE special programme, Andy Cheung, and he is here now.
However, my most important answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is that the funding agreements that we have with all those arts bodies stress the need for a clear policy on cultural diversity and that it needs to be reflected in board and staff membership as well as in artists and funding.
I referred to the undoubted difficulty of measuring our achievements and whether we are keeping up. To do so would require many more resources than I have for a debate of this kind; but we recognise that support for the arts in the United Kingdom is central to support for our diverse communities which are the

1321
standard-bearers of our nation's cultural identity and history. I passed over the valuable reference of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to the way in which our museums and galleries reflect our society. The test will be not whether there is toleration of diversity but whether there is enthusiasm about diversity. Again, that is yet to be shown.
The arts and entertainments sectors are at the forefront of multicultural society in the United Kingdom rather than behind. I close by referring to the fourth fundamental belief expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, at the beginning of his report. He talks about the need for society to be cohesive as well as respectful of diversity, fostering a common sense of belonging and shared identity. That is the right way to address these issues.

Disqualifications Bill
8.40 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

Disqualifications Bill

  OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER COMMONWEALTH OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
  (" . No person may be a member of the House of Commons who holds an office of profit under a Commonwealth or foreign government which, if it were an office of profit under the Crown, would disqualify him from membership of the House of Commons.").
  The noble Lord said: The new clause is self-explanatory. We have been anomaly spotting on the Bill and here is another one. Those who hold an office of profit under the Crown are not permitted to be Members of the House of Commons. A Member of Parliament who acquires an office of profit is immediately and automatically disbarred. Even such minor offices as steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead disqualify a Member, as is well known. As my noble friend Lady Park pointed out earlier, some people holding valuable and respectable positions under the Crown are also disbarred.
  However, it turns out that someone who holds an office of profit under a foreign government is not disbarred. That is clearly an anomaly and the amendment would rectify it. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Certain persons holding an office of profit under the Crown may not sit as Members of the House of Commons. The offices concerned are listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975—an Act that I am sure is well known to the noble Lord. That Act specifically states that an office of profit is not a cause of disqualification unless listed in the Act. The amendment is in direct conflict with that. The office holders that it lists are disqualified from taking seats in the House of Commons because they are Crown appointees. Members of Parliament need to be
  1322
  sufficiently independent to perform their functions. It is not a matter of offices of profit, but of independence from the Crown.
  Successive governments have believed that it is not right to depart from the principles set out in the 1975 Act. The Bill would extend to Members of the Irish legislature the same right to sit as Members of the House of Commons as is available to members of Commonwealth legislatures. That has been knocked about in the Committee all evening and we all understand it.
  A citizen of Ireland or of a Commonwealth country may or may not sit as a member of that country's legislature, according to that country's law on disqualification. We do not believe that it would be right to impose a new restriction that could extend the scope of existing disqualifications of Commonwealth citizens. On that basis, I suggest that the amendment should be withdrawn.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The purpose of the amendment has been achieved: it has shown how ridiculous the Bill is. The Minister's only defence, once again, is that the treatment of Members of the Irish legislature should he the same as that of Members of Commonwealth legislatures. We know perfectly well that no Member of a Commonwealth legislature has ever taken advantage of the provision or is likely to do so. The Minister's reason is empty.
  I appreciate that the purpose of the office of profit rules for the House of Commons is that Members of Parliament should be independent of the Crown. They should be even more independent of foreign governments. We have heard once again that the so-called anomaly that the Bill is supposed to remove is by no means the only anomaly. On the contrary, the Bill is littered with them. That makes us all the more suspicious as to the reasons for picking out the particular anomaly that the Bill addresses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 9:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  ALLOWANCES FOR DUAL MEMBERSHIP OF LEGISLATURE OF IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
  (". Any person who is elected as a member of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland shall receive no more than 50 per cent. of the office costs allowance payable to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are self-explanatory. They may be regarded as frivolous or light-hearted. They provide that any dual members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland should have no more than 50 per cent of the salary and the office costs allowance of a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  I would not have spoken to the amendments if we had heard a satisfactory explanation of the Bill. The Minister may well tell me that we do not reduce the salary of a Member of the Scottish Parliament who is

  1323
  also a Member of the House of Commons, or a Member of the European Parliament who is also a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the House of Commons, let alone of those who are Members of three assemblies. I am well aware that there are several such examples.
  However, the Government have made a threadbare case for the Bill. We have simply been told that they judge it to be right. They are not prepared to say why and think that it is no business of Parliament, although the Minister insists that we are scrutinising the Bill. I do not know how we can scrutinise anything if we do not receive any answers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told us that the Bill had been scrutinised with enormous care in the House of Commons in an all-night sitting. The fact is that there was so much outrage in the other place that they went on all night but they did not have adequate time to consider the Bill or to have a Report stage. The Government have made an inadequate case for the Bill, so an inadequate salary ought to be paid. I beg to move.
  Viscount Cranborne: It may come as a surprise to my noble friend Lord Lamont, but I feel constrained to disagree with him on the amendment for two reasons. First, were this absurd Bill to become law—I sincerely hope that it will not—any Member of both the Dail and the British House of Commons would be taking on a heavy burden if they were to carry out their duties satisfactorily. I suspect that, for purely practical reasons, the job may be impossible without adequate support.
  If this absurd Bill were to pass, the eventuality set out so clearly by my noble friend Lord Cope would follow as night follows day. Various members of Sinn Fein/IRA would attempt to represent their Northern Ireland constituencies in the Dail and would sit in the Dail by virtue of their 26 constituencies. If they were to do that, we should certainly find that they would be highly stretched if they were not able to finance adequate administrative support to sustain both offices. I suspect that, rather than needing only 50 per cent of the allowances from each Parliament, they would need rather more than 100 per cent in order to sustain not only their travel arrangements but also the substantial staffs that they would require.
  Therefore, I advocate the reverse of my noble friend. I advocate that perhaps 150 per cent of the allowances should be available to such people. I do so secure in the knowledge that that would draw attention to the manifest absurdities of the provisions of this Bill in such a way as to ensure that the peoples of both the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom would laugh this measure to the scorn it deserves instead of giving it the lack of attention which so far they have done.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. With his vast Treasury experience, I am sure that he will have sounded out the Exchequers n both capitals and that they will be only too willing to finance this added expenditure. They
  1324
  may even be able to take on board the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It may involve a modest increase in income tax in both jurisdictions, but I am sure that this is such a precious Bill that no one would balk at that additional expenditure and imposition of taxation.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: While deferring to the noble Viscount, I should like to recall the words of the previous Speaker in order to support this discussion. When, as Speaker, she made her decision to refuse facilities to the two Sinn Fein Members who would not take their oath, she said:
  "I declined to allow those Members passes to the Palace of Westminster, because that would provide automatic access to many of the facilities not open to them. I told them that they were in effect asking for associate membership of this House. Such a status does not exist".
  It seems to me that anything that condones the idea that they might simultaneously fight an issue in the Dail and speak to an issue in the House of Commons is so absurd that it needs to be highlighted. That is why I see the point of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. However, I still believe that we have had a clear indication that it is not proper that they should receive such allowances. I assume that they could receive them only if they were carrying out the necessary duties, which they cannot do.
  Viscount Cranborne: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. She suggested rightly that it might be difficult for a Member with a dual mandate to be in two different places at once. Does my noble friend believe that it would be possible to introduce a form of electronic voting so that, if there were a three-line whip, someone with a dual mandate could vote electronically in Westminster if they happened to be in Dublin?
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to reply to that. It rather reminds me of the recommendations of the Foreign Policy Centre that, instead of having embassies, we should have websites and virtual embassies. Therefore, if we are talking about virtual Members of the House of Commons and of the Dail, there is a great deal to be said for that idea.
  Lord Laird: I have a slight difficulty with this proposal. Over the past few seconds I have given considerable thought to this amendment a rid am rather torn between the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I understand the status of the two Sinn Fein Members in another place to be that of MPs elect. They are not currently taking their salaries. Therefore, there does not appear to be much pressure on the recipients of this piece of legislation to look for financial reward.
  On the other hand, I was very taken by the argument of the noble Viscount regarding the amount of work that would be involved in being in at least two, and possibly three, places at one time. I was then persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux,

  1325
  with regard to the Exchequer—particularly in Dublin, which appears to be the recipient of a large amount of tax as a result of the Celtic Tiger.
  I speak from my own experience as chairman of an Ulster Scots agency which is part of a cross-Border language implementation body. I have been to Dublin on a number of occasions to discuss matters with the authorities there. It is possible to do so without being a Member of the Irish Parliament. I have discussed with them issues that are of interest to the cross-Border body, such as the fact that every sign throughout the island of Ireland will have to be in Ulster Scots as well as in Irish. It is stated in the Belfast Agreement that parity must mean total equality in the North and South. Such a move will be very expensive as every sign must be changed.
  Parity also means that when legislation such as this refers to the name of the Irish Parliament in Irish, it will also have to refer to it in Ulster Scots. The Ulster Scots word for Parliament is "Tolsel". Therefore, I would require future legislation of this type to refer to the Irish Parliament not only in Irish but in Ulster Scots as well. I repeat that it is stated in the Belfast Agreement that parity must mean total equality in the North and South.
  As chairman of a cross-Border implementation body, I would not be prepared to cherry-pick the Belfast Agreement. I am sure that no one in this House would like me to do so and no one in Dublin wants me to do so. However, I recognise, and wish to place on the record in your Lordships' House, the generosity of taxpayers in the Irish Republic. In implementing the Belfast Agreement they will put up billions—not millions—of pounds in changing signs throughout the Irish Republic so that they appear in Ulster Scots as well as in Irish.
  In addition there is the whole business of changing the curriculum. It will be necessary to ensure that in history as taught throughout the Irish Republic references to the British and the Ulster Scots are treated in a positive, not a negative, fashion. That may also prove to be expensive. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in relation to this matter. A large amount of money can be put into implementing the Belfast Agreement.
  We would also need to ensure that, wherever people seek a job in public service in the island of Ireland—nowadays they require qualifications in Irish—parity—
  Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because I am about to make another hostile comment. I cannot follow what the noble Lord's speech has to do with the amendments. I understand the point that he makes, but not in relation to the amendments.
  Lord Laird: In his time, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was one of the most popular Ministers to have come from this House. In the past I have regaled many stories about the noble Lord and, given the time, I am sure that I could do so again.
  1326
  However, my point is that I am interested in the concept of expenses. As I understand it, this amendment concerns expenses. I am talking about the availability of funding in the Irish Republic to implement the Belfast Agreement. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that there is plenty of money available in the Irish Exchequer to implement the Belfast Agreement. I cited proof of that from my involvement as chairman of the language implementation body. It will cost the southern Irish taxpayers billions of pounds.
  The television company in the south used to be called RTE but it will soon have another Ulster Scots name. It has recently introduced another version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Anybody who is lucky enough to be elected to three assemblies should, in future, be part of that process and perhaps we should suggest that they can phone a friend and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, might be that friend.
  I am very taken with the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount. I have listened carefully to my distinguished colleague here, my noble friend Lord Molyneaux and the point which he made about the Exchequer. We should not be reducing expenses for anybody who falls into the category of being a multimember of as many parliaments as he possibly can.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Laird, was looking forward to future amendments, perhaps to be tabled on Report, which we may have to consider. In no way do I want to equate myself with Solomon but, to a certain extent, I am in a similar dilemma to that in which he found himself on one occasion, in that my noble friend Lord Lamont supports the amendments and my noble friend Lord Cranborne opposes them.
  I do not believe that anybody need worry about the Exchequer because, if my expectation is correct that it is the members of Sinn Fein who will take up those opportunities and they will not take up their seats at Westminster, then they will not receive the money for that half of their duties. No doubt they will earn whatever is paid to them by the Dail.
  Viscount Cranborne: Of course, my noble friend is right about that and in his usual gentlemanly way did not point out directly that I had failed to observe that. Nevertheless, we are talking about tidiness here. I am sure that my noble friend will admit that it is at least theoretically possible that circumstances might change and in any piece of legislation we should anticipate that, if not a member of Sinn Fein, some other dual mandate person might find it possible to take the oath in both places.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, indeed. We are not excused from addressing the point behind the

  1327
  amendment. But in that regard I support my noble friend Lord Cranborne on Amendment No. 9 and my noble friend Lord Lamont on Amendment No. 10.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The power to determine the salaries and expenses of the Northern Ireland Assembly Members, which is what these two amendments relate to, is in the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. It would therefore be for the Assembly to determine whether or not the salaries and allowances of its members should be reduced, as proposed in those amendments, or increased, as proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. No legislative provision is required to allow the Assembly to achieve this.
  The Committee will know that Section 47(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires a reduction in the salaries where a member is not only a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly but also a Member of the House of Commons and/or the European Parliament. Members of the Committee will know that the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has a discretion in relation to what the deduction should be, reduced by two-thirds the salaries of Northern Ireland Assembly members who also had mandates elsewhere.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I am grateful also to my noble friends who have spoken. When the noble and learned Lord said that salaries are in the hands of the Assembly, I began to get very alarmed because I thought that that could be a real licence to print money if the members there could determine their own salaries. But then I recalled that that, of course, is the situation in the House of Commons where Ministers, rather as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us regularly in this debate, remind the House of Commons and the House of Lords that that is a matter for them to decide. Of course, that is not so in Northern Ireland because, in fact, the Executive rules, so the dictum of the noble and learned Lord that the Assembly determines salaries may not be quite as alarming as it appears at first sight.
  I am not entirely surprised that my noble friend Lord Cranborne took a different view. At one stage, I thought he was going to suggest a manuscript amendment. Indeed, while I am speaking, it is still possible for him to write out a manuscript amendment and I am sure that we should be able to have a further debate on the opposite proposition.
  My noble friend Lady Park rightly referred to the ruling of the Speaker and the attempts that members of Sinn Fein have made to enjoy the benefits of the facilities of Westminster and the office costs allowance without taking their seats. We are all extremely grateful to the Speaker of the House of Commons for having taken such a robust line. That was one reason for tabling these amendments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, spoke about cross-border institutions. That made me reflect that one of the points to which we object in this Bill is that the Government are seeking to make the Northern Ireland Assembly into a cross-border institution. That is the
  1328
  effect of this Bill: to make the status of Northern Ireland ambiguous; to make the Assembly into a cross-border institution. That is why we feel so strongly about this.
  I do not propose to press these amendments to a Division, although if we ever reached the stage where the salaries or office costs allowances were being paid to Sinn Fein members, goodness knows where the money would end up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 11:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  DISQUALIFICATION FROM MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (". No person elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 14. The amendments put forward a number of different propositions. The more we go into this Bill, the more complex the ramifications of it become and the more varied the number of situations which arise. The Bill is not at all what it first appears. It has multiple consequences. Thus, in these debates, we have been forced to table amendments which would have the effect of having no Ministers of other countries in either the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly; amendments, to which we shall come later, which ensure that Irish Ministers and chairmen of committees of the Irish parliament should not be Northern Ireland Ministers; that junior Irish Ministers should not be Northern Ireland Ministers; that Irish MPs should not be Northern Ireland Ministers; that Irish committee chairman should not be Northern Ireland Ministers, and that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament should not be Northern Ireland committee chairmen. The combinations are infinite. However, in Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 we propose, only for dual Members of the House of Commons and the Dail, that it should not be possible to become a UK Minister. Amendment No. 12 proposes alternatively that it should not be possible for a Dail Member to be a UK Minister. This concerns the conflict of loyalties which we have continually emphasised in these debates.
  Amendment No. 14 proposes that Irish MPs of either House should not be Speaker or Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons. I accept that it is for the House of Commons to determine, through an election, who should be Speaker. I was moved to table the amendment because it seemed rather bizarre that the Speaker of the House of Commons could in theory be an Irish Member of Parliament. However, I say in advance, even without hearing the Minister's reply, that that is not an amendment I wish to press.
  Amendment No. 13 is important. It proposes that an Irish Minister should not be a UK Minister. I hope here that I might have some encouragement from the Liberal Democrat Benches. So far, the Liberal Democrats have not contributed to our debate in any way. However, I hope we may hear their views on this amendment. It was put forward by Simon Hughes in the House of Commons. It was presumably drafted by him or his office. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats from the Front Bench, he stated that he had gone along with the principles of the Bill, but that having done that, he drew a line. He stated
  "In our view, no one should be able to hold simultaneously ministerial office in the Irish Government and ministerial office in the British Government or in the Northern Ireland Government … We have always argued that there is no necessary incompatibility with being a member of two legislatures. We share that view with the Government".
  But he went on to say:
  "There is a strong conflict of interests. Someone who is a member of the Government in one country cannot simultaneously and without conflicts of interest arising be a member of the Government of another sovereign country."
  He continued that, although it would be unlikely that a British Prime Minister would choose such a person to go into his government, nonetheless, as has been evident from everything we have discussed, the Bill was dealing with things which are theoretical and probably unlikely to occur. He stated:
  "The Minister asked me whether what I described would be likely in the real world. The entire Bill is in large measure about things that do not happen in that world. The Bill is about whether Members of Commonwealth Parliaments would be Members of the Westminster Parliament. The Minister said that there are not any such Members in that position and there never have been. I understand that no one has previously served in a Parliament in this country while simultaneously being a Member of a Commonwealth country Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/00, cols. 493 and 494.]
  Needless to say, he went on to state that he supported his own amendment and that he did not believe that someone should be able to hold ministerial office in the Irish Government and the British Government or the Northern Ireland Government at the same time. That was the view of the Liberal Democrats. I therefore hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesman will give Amendment No. 13 his warm support.
  Viscount Cranborne: I understand the reason why my noble friend tabled the amendments. He is right to point out that if a conflict of loyalties exists for a Back Bench Member of both sovereign parliaments, an even greater conflict of interest and loyalty will exist for people who hold any form of office, not only in the sovereign parliament but also in the subsidiary parliaments and assemblies of the United Kingdom. I do not think I need to add to the points raised by the noble Lord. They are evidence enough of the difficulties of the Bill as brought before us and why we oppose it in principle.
  However, there is another difficulty which the Government need to address. It is something which I suspect has worried Members of the Committee in
  1330
  relation to other pieces of legislation ever since the 1997 general election. The devolution legislation, particularly for Scotland, raised precisely this point. One of the glories of your Lordships' Chamber is that every Member of it is equal. Whatever we feel about each other, our experience and our capabilities, we are all equal and theoretically are able to perform jobs open to us, whether as members of Government, Opposition Front Bench or as members or chairmen of Select Committees. I believe I am right in saying that the same is true of another place.
  One of the difficulties thrown up by the West Lothian question is how it is possible effectively to create two classes of Member in another place. We know that it is possible for a Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency to vote on matters not devolved to English regions but devolved to the Scottish Parliament. And this Bill is providing a classic locus of conflict. My noble friend and I strongly believe that there is a conflict of interest which is insoluble for members of two sovereign parliaments. As he eloquently made clear, any office holder covered by Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, will have an even greater conflict of interest. It is therefore beyond peradventure undesirable that such office holders should be members of another sovereign parliament. But at the same time, as soon as we accept my noble friend's amendments, we immediately create two classes of Member in another place. That is inevitable when we get ourselves into the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into over Scottish devolution and, equally, over this Bill.
  When confronted with what seemed to me two irreconcilable matters, one had to make a choice, just as the leader of my party made a choice with his slogan, "English votes for English laws". I can understand why he did that and I am sure that, like me, he felt that that was the least bad option open to us for the West Lothian question, even though it raises all sorts of difficulties of a kind of which my noble friend will be more than well aware.
  My noble friend has done us a great service by tabling Amendments Nos. 11 to 14. He is right in saying that the conflict of loyalties for office holders of this kind is greater even than it would be for members of two sovereign parliaments. But he is introducing another difficulty which will need resolution if, as I hope, he succeeds in this amendment; that is, how is another place to deal with having two classes of Member? As I repeated ad nauseam in the debates on reform of your Lordships' House, that is profoundly undesirable. There is a distinct difference between taking different routes to membership of an Assembly and, once there, having different rights within it. That is a conflict I am sorry to find. I do not blame my noble friend; I am sure he is well aware of it. And he is right that, when one is forced to make a judgment in these matters, to try to resolve the question of inherent conflict of interest seems to be more important.
  That shows that the Government are opening a can which will lead them into all sorts of difficulties, comparable to those they are beginning to face in the native heath of the noble and learned Lord.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As someone who sat through many debates in the other place as far back as the home rule and devolution for Scotland debates in the time of the Callaghan government, it is true that there has never been a clear resolution of the difficulty of what he rightly calls two classes of member. But at least in one way or another they are paying taxation to the same Treasury. But in this Bill, without giving much thought to it, we are creating a third-class member from another sovereign country who presumably will be permitted to vote on expenditure and taxation within the United Kingdom, although not himself contributing to taxation within it. I agree with the noble Viscount that that is not something we can lightly pass over. We are having problems with Scotland already. If the Northern Ireland Assembly reaches the point where it is given powers to increase taxation, then naturally we shall spotlight the anomaly contained in these provisions.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I assume that most of your Lordships will agree that these are relatively unlikely possibilities being provided for in this block of amendments. Both ministerial speakers in the debates today have based their recommendations for this Bill on the idea that the whole thing is an unlikely possibility. It is we who believe that the opportunities offered by the Bill may lead to very serious consequences. If we are to correct anomalies, those addressed by this block of amendments seem to be extremely interesting and should certainly be considered.
  I am particularly attracted to Amendment No. 13. I believe that the extracts from the speech of Mr Simon Hughes in another place were particularly forceful, not least because of their origin and speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. It would be particularly damaging if that particular loophole was not closed and an attempt was made to use it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had quite a lengthy discourse on this particular group of amendments. I am not quite sure that they were worth it, but obviously I have to respect the Members of the Committee and the way in which they address the amendments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, really gave the game away when he said that much of what they sought to deal with was theoretical. I felt that throughout much of the discussion. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, raised an interesting point about a conflict of interest if Irish Ministers were to hold ministerial office in the UK Government. One can accept that such a potential for conflict could exist in a particular circumstance, but I do not believe that it is necessary to legislate to prevent it because the existing protections, in our view, are more than sufficient.
  These amendments seek to add additional protection against potential conflicts. All the offices to which the amendments refer, unlike those in the Northern Ireland Assembly to which the Bill applies, are offices filled by election or appointment by the
  1332
  Prime Minister or the House of Commons. They are free to choose not to elect or appoint to the office a member of the Irish legislature or the Irish Government.
  As regards the Northern Ireland Ministers and the chairman and deputy chairman of the statutory committees of the Assembly, those posts are filled by the d'Hondt system which allocates posts according to the number of seats held by parties in the Assembly. We believe that the provisions in the Bill are necessary to prevent a possible conflict of interest where the same individual holds offices as specified in the Bill in both the Assembly and the Irish legislature. Clearly, the same situation does not apply to appointments made by the Prime Minister or the House of Commons. For those reasons, we believe that the proposed amendments—no doubt well intentioned in their strange way—are completely unnecessary.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am sorry that the Minister thought that to spend 15 or 17 minutes after he had spoken was rather a long time for such amendments. No doubt he would take an even dimmer view of the length of time that the House of Commons took considering the Bill. It was forced to sit all night because of the way in which the Bill was presented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, called that "scrutiny". To most of us it seemed farcical. It was put forward with such a timetable without an adequate reason being offered.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In moving the amendment, he said—I paraphrase—that he thought they were dealing with somewhat of a theoretical situation. That was the context in which I made my observation.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I believe that they were dealing with a theoretical possibility, but, as Mr Simon Hughes said in another place, the whole Bill deals with a theoretical possibility. It is one which the noble Viscount, my honourable friends and I hope will never come about. Our objection to the Bill is that we do not know what is theoretical and what is real. We do not know what is around the corner because the Government will give no explanation of why this mysterious Bill which no one wants is being put forward. In constitutional terms, it is an outrage that the Bill is being put forward.
  On a previous amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accused me of believing in conspiracies. I have every reason to do so when I see the policy document put forward by Sinn Fein and when the Bill was justified simply in terms of administrative tidying up. I could give Ministers thousands of anomalies in our taxation legislation, some of which I created, and I should be delighted if they would tidy them all up tomorrow. When an anomaly exists, it is not normal that Ministers rush forward and publish something almost on Christmas Eve so that political parties have no communication

  1333
  through official channels nor an opportunity to consult outside bodies. The Bill was introduced in January, just after the House of Commons returned—
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that he over-eggs the argument. Yes, the Bill was published in December and there was a full month for it to be commented on by other parties. I understand that the parties in Northern Ireland were made fully aware of the publication of the Bill and there was that period in which they could have passed extra comment on it.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The Minister sa s that there was a full month. The Bill was published three days before Christmas, on the day when Parliament rose and everyone went off on holiday. No one was going to be aware of press releases and publications between 22nd December and 2nd or 3rd January. The Bill then had its Second Reading and Committee stage—there was no Report stage—in the first week of Parliament's return. I do not believe that that is adequate consultation.
  Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He had enormous experience of introducing and promoting legislation when he was a Minister in another place. Did he ever introduce a Bill purely for administrative convenience and without explaining to another place whether there was a demand for it? Did he explain whether he had taken soundings on such a Bill and, if he had, during his explanation for introducing it, did he fail to say who was in favour of it and why?
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I must confess that I introduced many measures for which there was no demand—indeed, there was positive opposition! However, I hope that I have always tried to the best of my ability to explain why I thought a measure was necessary even if the rest of the world did not. It seems to me that either you explain why something is necessary or you explain who wants it. We have received no explanation of the Bill and to hear it described as tidying up an anomaly, when the anomaly has been no obstacle to anything that has happened so far in the real world, merely fuels one's suspicions that other things are going on and that the Bill is designed only as part of the appeasement of Sinn Fein/IRA that has characterised what the Government have done.
  We are moving into a world in which morality and common sense are suspended, in which Ministers say, "We don't know who fired a rocket at MI6", and in which we preach to other countries about what they should do about people who have abused human rights. What on earth is the meaning of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law when we do nothing to arrest those who torture and knee-cap people? The European Convention on Human Rights and its prohibition on torture has no meaning when applied to governments. In this country, it has meaning only when applied to
  1334
  the action of people such as members of the IRA. It is a farce for people on the Benches opposite to preach the merits of human rights and of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law when they do nothing about the right of people not to be tortured by the IRA. They set aside the judgments of courts and release prisoners, yet preach to the new democratically-elected President of Serbia how he should deal with so-called men of violence in his own country. However, I must not digress.
  The Minister did not deal in any way with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Cranborne about reproduction of the Scottish question and the creation of two classes of members, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, the creation of three classes of members.
  We are not getting very far. However, I believe that Amendment No. 13 is compelling. I very much agree with the words of Simon Hughes in another place:
  "In our view, no one should be able to hold simultaneously ministerial office in the Irish Government and ministerial office in the British Government or in the Northern Ireland Government … There is a strong conflict of interests. Someone who is a member of the Government in one country cannot simultaneously and without conflicts of interest arising be a member of the Government of another sovereign country".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/00; col. 493.]
  It is Mr Hughes' amendment that I put forward. I propose to divide the Committee on that amendment, and I assume that in so doing I shall have the support of the Liberal Democrats.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has endeavoured, quite successfully, to goad me into rising to speak. The reason I have not spoken to this matter is that earlier today the Conservative Front Bench protested about the length of Committee stages. This evening we have been subjected to filibuster on the part of the Conservative Benches. I am certain that my honourable friend in another place would not want his arguments to be prayed in aid in that filibuster, and that is the reason for my silence.
  Viscount Cranborne: Before the noble Lord sits down, how does he justify the accusation of a filibuster?
  Lord Smith of Clifton: One has had repetition, circumlocution and, frankly, Second Reading-type debates in Committee.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am dismayed and astonished by the observations of the Liberal Democrats. I am surprised that they cannot support the amendment as drafted by their own spokesman. Like Mr Hughes, I regard this issue as of considerable importance. He agreed with some of the points aired in another place in Committee. It is utterly wrong to suggest that there has been filibustering. We have had relatively short debates on the individual amendments. The Minister complained that we had taken 15 minutes for one amendment. If a filibuster was going

  1335
  on several hours might be thought to be appropriate. I do not see how 15 minutes to deal with four amendments can be described as a filibuster. I do not wish to prolong this debate. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 11. I shall not move Amendment No. 12 but shall put Amendment No. 13—the Liberal Democrats' amendment—to a vote in the Division Lobby.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 13:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  DISQUALIFICATION FROM MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 3)
  (".—(1) No person may be appointed to ministerial office in the Government of the United Kingdom if he is a member of the Government of Ireland.
  (2) A minister in the government of the United Kingdom ceases to hold office on becoming a minister in the Government of Ireland.").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
  9.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 75.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Blatch, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Byford, B.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Cranborne, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Elton, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Laird, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Luke, L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ahmed, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

  Amos, B.

  Desai, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Bach, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Elder, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Brett, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Filkin, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Gilbert, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  1336

  Hamwee, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Prashar, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Simon, V.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Judd, L.

  Warner, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Winston, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Young of Old Same, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  9.43 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
  Clause 2 [Disqualification for Ministerial office in Northern Ireland]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 13, after ("Minister") insert ("as Presiding Officer or as Deputy Presiding Officer").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other amendments in the grouping. All the amendments refer to qualifications required or disqualifications provided for the officers of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The previous group of amendments concerned disqualifications for UK Ministers. I was interested to note that, in the Division, the Liberal Democrats voted against their own amendment. I suppose that is life, but. I hope that the Minister did not confuse them into going through the wrong Lobby.
  This group of amendments concerns the disqualifications for the officers of the Northern Ireland Assembly; namely, the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer, the chairman and deputy chairman of Assembly committees and so forth. Amendment No. 33A, tabled in the name of certain noble Lords opposite, concerns the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.
  Many of these bodies are appointed by a complex d'Hondt procedure, invented by Professor d'Hondt. That means that the choice of those who come to hold the various offices is not always in the gift of any one individual. In the previous amendment we discussed Ministers of the UK Government, the choice of which is clearly in the gift of the Prime Minister of the day. In that case, he or she can be expected to look after the national interest, which makes it slightly less likely that the eventualities foreseen in those amendments would occur. However, so far as concerns this group of amendments, it is quite likely that eventualities could turn out in the way we are seeking to protect against.
  Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point in the earlier amendment by referring ahead to government amendments which cover Northern Ireland Ministers. The basic proposition behind the amendments in my name in this grouping is that the presiding officer or his deputy, and, for that matter, the chairmen of the various Assembly committees—they will be important people working in the Assembly—should be in a similar position to the Northern Ireland Ministers themselves. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Rogan: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 24, 33A and 45. Amendment No. 17 has a clear purpose; namely, that of placing the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer, committee chairmen and deputy chairmen within the same restrictions as those which apply to the First and Deputy First Minister and those which apply to Ministers and junior Ministers.
  Just as Ministers, whether they be First, Deputy or junior, should not be Ministers in the Government of Ireland, neither should the presiding officer be capable of being a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The presiding officer or any Speaker of any House has an implicit duty to act even-handedly towards all members of that assembly, irrespective of their political outlook.
  That duty will be difficult enough with the Speaker being an elected Member of the Assembly, never mind being a member of the government of another country. How, then, could a Minister of the Government of Ireland conceivably be effective as a presiding officer? This aspect of Amendment No. 17 is perfectly logical, and even more so in the case of committee chairmen.
  The committee chairmen aspect of Amendment No. 17 is more important than that of the presiding officer. As the Bill stands, it will always remain a possibility that the presiding officer is a member of the Government of Ireland. However, according to the Bill, it is more a probability that, by virtue of d'Hondt, a committee chairman will, at some point in time, be a Member of the Government of Ireland.
  With d'Hondt being used as the procedure for appointing committee chairs, parties with a minor level of support are, via d'Hondt, able to appoint a chairman or deputy chairman. Indeed, d'Hondt empowers minority parties to select a chairman. It is not, therefore, beyond the realms of possibility that Sinn Fein could appoint someone who was a member of the Assembly and a member of the Government of Ireland to a committee chair. Even if the vast majority of the Assembly members opposed the appointment, even if it was cross-community, it would have no effect on the appointment.
  It must be remembered that, via d'Hondt, the Progressive Unionist Party, with two seats in the Assembly—which is not even 2 per cent of the seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly—was able to nominate the chairman of the Audit Committee. The Alliance Party, with just six seats—just under
  1338
  6 per cent of the seats in the Assembly—was able to nominate a committee chairman for the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee.
  I have not addressed the issue of conflict of interests. However, I believe that what I have said already is sufficient for one to conclude that the presiding officer and committee chairmen should be in the same category as Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Turning briefly to Amendment No. 24, it will be clear that the amendment has the same raison d'être as Amendment No. 17 but concerns a slightly different scenario. Amendment No. 17 would apply to a situation where a person is a member of the Government of Ireland and then attempts to hold office in the Executive. Amendment No. 24 applies to the situation where a person is an office holder in Northern Ireland and then becomes a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. These two amendments are sides of the same coin.
  Similarly, Amendments Nos. 33A and 45, although not sides of the same coin, concern the same point. These two amendments seek to exclude Ministers in the Republic of Ireland who are sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly from becoming a commissioner in the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. The function of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, inter alia, is to provide the property, staff and services required for the Assembly to function.
  However, I shall make two other points on roles that commissioners have undertaken. With respect to the issue of the flying of the flag, a member of the commission, acting as a commissioner, recently announced in the Assembly that the flag will be flown from parliament buildings on the stipulated 17 days until the Assembly can agree otherwise. How could we have a Minister of the Government of Ireland taking such a decision as a commissioner and yet retaining the confidence of the population of Northern Ireland?
  A second point on the commission concerns the role of appointing staff. The commission makes appointments to positions such as the examiner of statutory rules for the Assembly. How can a Minister from the Government of Ireland judge such a key appointment within a legal system and legislative process which is alien to them, they having experience of a system based on a written constitution?
  It is clear that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission should not be ignored. It is an important body and the role of a commissioner is important. It is extremely unlikely that the commission could retain the confidence of the population of Northern Ireland if a Minister of the Government of Ireland were to be seen taking decisions such as those of a commissioner.
  I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments and reflect on what has been said. We should try to improve draft legislation—even a piece of draft legislation as unnecessary and poorly justified as this.
  Viscount Cranborne: I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. It is clear that this group of amendments concern not only preserving the neutrality of the presiding officer of the Assembly and other office holders, but making sure that it is seen to be preserved. We are yet again in the vexed area of conflict of interest that has dogged this Bill from the beginning.
  It is surely in the nature of a Minister to be partisan. It is his or her business to support the actions of the government of whom he or she is a member. Is it not, therefore, self-evident, merely taking Amendment No. 15, that it would be wholly incompatible for an Irish Minister, or indeed a British Minister, to become presiding officer of the Assembly and for the Minister concerned to be able to pretend that he or she could swap hats depending on which chair he or she was sitting in at the time?
  We know, if only from the identity of the present presiding officer of the Assembly and his party, that perceived neutrality is particularly important. I suspect that he was selected as the nearest thing to the middle of the spectrum in Northern Ireland that could be found. It seems to me that, however unlikely this eventuality might be, it would be deeply reassuring, at least, if even the unlikely eventuality of an Irish Minister occupying any of the offices listed in these amendments were legislated against and enshrined as an impossibility.
  Lord Laird: I join other noble Lords in supporting the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 33A, which refers to the Assembly Commission. It is not fully understood that the commission is a most important body within the Assembly, having overall control under Section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for,
  "the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes".
  It is not widely appreciated, but the commission looks after the personnel and recruitment of staff for the Assembly, the Clerk of Bills, the Clerk of Committees, the Editor of Debates, the Keeper of the House and the research and library services, as well as having responsibility for the key issue of flags and whether or not they are flown over parliament buildings at Stormont. It is simply not possible that a Minister in the Irish Republic could be a member of the commission of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would bring discredit to the whole system and would make a laughing-stock of the Belfast agreement.
  Recruitment of staff is possibly one of the key points. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, pointed to the Assembly Examiner of Statutory Rules. Candidates for the post are required to have experience of, and specialisation in, the preparation and interpretation of legislation. The Irish Republic has a written constitution; the preparation and interpretation of legislation in the Republic is completely different from that in the United Kingdom, where there is no such written constitution. It is, therefore, wholly inappropriate that an Irish Minister should be a
  1340
  member of the Assembly Commission, which is responsible for appointments to such sensitive posts as Examiner of Statutory Bills. I support the amendment.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments seek to include the post of presiding officer, deputy presiding officer and members of the Assembly Commission among posts that may not be held by an Irish Minister, or, as proposed in other amendments, even a Member of the Irish legislature. Amendment No. 16 and the second part of Amendment No. 17 propose that someone cannot be a Member of the Irish Government and also a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory or an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  As to the second group of amendments dealing with chairmen and deputy chairmen of statutory committees, the Government are broadly of the same mind as those proposing the amendments. There are later amendments on the Marshalled List that would have that effect.
  The area where there is a difference of view between us relates to ad hoc committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as opposed to statutory committees. The Government's view is that there should not be a prohibition in relation to ad hoc committees because, unlike statutory committees, they have no role to play in the development of policy and no power to initiate legislation. Therefore, the appropriate level to include in the provision is chairman and deputy chairman of statutory committees.
  As far as concerns the position of presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, they have no role either in policy development or in relation to the initiation of policy. So, again, we do not believe that any conflict of interest would arise in that respect. As to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, I can tell the Committee that the commission is a body corporate and no commissioner has individual powers. Assembly commissioners are appointed in accordance with Assembly standing orders and the Assembly has power to determine this and to direct the commission. However, a powerful case was made in relation to Assembly commissioners. Therefore, although we stand by our position in relation to presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, perhaps I may take away the points made about the Assembly commissioners and consider them. In the light of my response, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: One must, of course, be grateful for small mercies. Since we tabled these amendments, I am grateful for the fact that the Government have tabled their own amendments, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, partially take the point. However, as he also made clear, they do not wholly take the point, especially as regards the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer and the commission. I am sorry about that. But, nevertheless, we should be grateful for small mercies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

  1341
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 18:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out ("a Minister of the Government of Ireland") and insert ("the holder of a disqualifying office").
  The noble Lord said: Noble Lords have been waiting for these amendments all evening; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to them a long while ago. These amendments come with another group of amendments that have been tabled in order to debate the whole issue. Government Amendments Nos. 18, 25, 30, 40 and 43 recognise that parliamentary and statutory committees of the Assembly all have the power to initiate legislation and, hence, have a role in policy development—a critical distinction. As currently drafted, the Bill prevents Irish Ministers from holding ministerial office in Northern Ireland because of the potential conflict of interest that that would involve.
  The same potential for a conflict of interest would exist if an Irish Minister were to be appointed as the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly, or the chairman or deputy chairman of the Irish Parliament were to be appointed as a Northern Ireland Minister or as the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the Bill, as provided in these amendments. I commend them to the Committee.
  Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 are, I believe, covered by the government amendments already tabled, with the exception that we do not believe it necessary to include ad hoc committees, which, as I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer observed earlier, have no statutory role in the development of policy. Hence they have no power to initiate legislation. Again, therefore, the conflict of interest that we are seeking to prevent will not arise when a person holds office as an Irish Minister, or as chairman or deputy chairman of an Irish parliamentary committee; and, indeed, as chairman of an ad hoc committee.
  Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A ask the Committee to extend the scope of Clause 2 to include a reference to a "Junior Minister" of the Government of Ireland, in addition to the existing reference to a,
  "Minister of the Government of Ireland".
  Again, we believe this to be unnecessary, as the term "Junior Minister" is not used by the Irish Government. We consider that it is superfluous for that reason. As such, the reference to,
  "Minister of the Government of Ireland",
  adequately covers Irish junior Ministers. Clause 2 refers explicitly to junior Ministers in Northern Ireland because the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for different methods of appointment for Northern Ireland Ministers and we consequently
  1342
  believe it necessary and right to refer to Northern Ireland junior Ministers explicitly to ensure that they are covered by the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 20, 22, 26, 28 and, I believe, 44 seek to extend the scope of Clause 2 to disqualify any Member of the Irish legislature from holding Northern Ireland ministerial office or serving as chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. Amendment No. 44 is a consequential amendment to the Title.
  These amendments go much further than we believe is necessary or required to prevent the conflict of interest that is of concern and, as such, are contrary to the purpose of the Bill which is, as we have explained on many occasions, to place Irish citizens in the same position as Commonwealth citizens in recognition of the close relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland which has been strengthened—as all in this Chamber have observed—since the coming into effect of the Belfast agreement and the resultant changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Amendment No. 19 which stands in my name and that of others states:
  "Page 1, line 16, after ('Minister') insert ('or Junior Minister').
  I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. However, new Section 19A(c) refers, at line 15 of page 1, in a slightly different context to the words,
  "be appointed as a junior Minister".
  It seems logical to read line 15 in conjunction with line 16—the latter line as amended by our amendment—
  "(c) be appointed as a junior Minister.
  if he is a Minister or Junior Minister of the Government of Ireland".
  I think that that format would be tidier and less likely to be misunderstood. I do not believe that it would breach any great policy decision. I do not see how it could be resented by anyone as it constitutes a minor tidying up in so far as it makes one line consistent with the following.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than happy to take away that amendment and consider it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As I said in connection with the previous amendment, I accept Amendment No. 18 and those that are associated with it as a small but important concession on the Government's part. However, I wonder how it fits in with the choreography of Northern Ireland that we heard about earlier from the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
  However, as the Minister pointed out, Amendment No. 20 and those that are associated with it attempt to go further. I see no reason why Members of the Dail should be acceptable as Northern Ireland Ministers. I think that that would constitute a terrible conflict of interest. Given the d'Hondt procedure, it is not in

  1343
  anyone's gift to stop it unless we stop it in the legislation. That is the purpose of the amendments I mentioned which go further than the Government's.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I apologise. When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, moved his amendment, I should have advised the Committee that, if Amendment No. 18 were agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 19 to 21. I apologise for that slip.
  Lord Rogan: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 25A and 26. All four of these amendments are concerned with which positions within the government of Ireland should be excluded from the listed places in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  If it is deemed improper for a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to become a Minister in the Republic of Ireland's Government, why is that not reciprocated? Why will it be possible for a junior Minister in the Irish Government to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Do members of Sinn Fein only, initially at least, wish to be junior Ministers in the Republic of Ireland's Government?
  These two amendments provide for the situation where one person is a junior Minister in the Government of Ireland and then becomes a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; the order of appointment is reversed. I note that government Amendments Nos. 18, 25 and 30 attempt to rectify the problem a little.
  The problem does not appear to have been given sufficient attention in another place by the Government, even though they had adequate opportunity during what I believe were some 27 hours of debate. However, the issue of junior Ministers has still riot been favourably resolved, as with some other office holders in both assemblies. Therefore, I believe that the most sensible solution is to accept Amendments Nos. 20 and 26. That must be preferable to attempting to draw impossible boundaries, grouping together permissible office holders and excluding others. We do not need to concern ourselves with particular posts in the Irish Government or Parliament if we simply exclude all members of that legislature from holding the listed positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  The reasons why we should exclude all members of the Irish legislature is founded not only on necessary clarity but also on the inevitable conflict of interest which has been much debated already today. The means of determining Northern Ireland's constitutional position is clearly found in the Belfast Agreement—unlike this Bill which is clearly not in the agreement.
  Enabling a person to hold office in Northern Ireland and yet sit in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland is a means of clouding the clarity with which Northern Ireland's constitutional status was stated in the Belfast Agreement. That agreement cannot and should not be
  1344
  cherry picked. This piece of legislation should not be used as a means of renegotiating that agreement on behalf of the republicans.
  I support Amendments Nos. 20 and 26. I urge the Committee to support Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A only as a second preference to the complete exclusion of all members of the Irish legislature from holding the listed offices in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  We have debated the issue at great length and time moves on. If what I shall say is out of order perhaps noble Lords will tell me. However, in a few clays' time we shall debate the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. As the Disqualification Bill is drafted, a Minister in the Government of Ireland can be in the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, a member of the Assembly can then sit on the police board. Schedule 3 to that Bill excludes Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly from being on the police board. However, by removing disqualification, the Disqualifications Bill permits Ministers of the Irish Government who are also members of the Assembly to be on that police board.
  How will that encourage the population of Northern Ireland to have confidence in the new police board? Can the Minister remind me how well thought out the Disqualifications Bill is?
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I welcome government Amendments Nos. 18 and 25, which ensure that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 30 provides that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland committee chairmen. The Minister has recognised the fact—I welcome it—that committee chairmen are part of the process of policy development. The point was raised in another place but I welcome the fact that this modest concession has been made.
  My Amendments Nos. 22 and 28 would provide that Irish Members of Parliament could not be Northern Ireland Ministers. The Minister said that he did not think that that was a sufficient conflict of interest, although he has given no reasons for his judgment and has made a different judgment for committee chairmen. As my noble friend Lord Cope said from the Front Bench, there could be a serious conflict of interest.
  I have one question for the Minister on which he may need to take advice. This may be inaccurate, but I have read that Members of the European Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland Ministers and that that is why Ian Paisley and John Hume are not part of the Executive, but have left it to their deputy leaders. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that is right.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think that that sounds right, but I shall take advice and tell the noble Lord.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: It would he helpful if we could have advice now. I am grateful to the Minister

  1345
  for intervening, but if what I have said is right, it casts his rejection of the amendment in an odd light. I do not understand why he should reject the suggestion that Irish MPs should not be Northern Ireland Ministers if Members of the European Parliament cannot be members of the Executive. I beg the Minister's forgiveness for asking the question, but I have read of that provision. I know that the Liberals will accuse me of filibustering. I certainly cannot accuse them of filibustering as they sit there without saying a word in this very important debate. No accusation so inglorious as filibustering can be levelled against them. They do not seem to worry in slightest about this constitutional outrage. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on my question.
  Viscount Cranborne: The amendments are of considerable interest. We are grateful to the Government for the concessions that they have made, but I hope that the Committee will reflect on the extraordinary situation that we are contemplating as though it were an everyday matter. Not only are we debating the possibility of Members of another sovereign Parliament becoming Ministers in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom, but we have to make it explicit that Ministers in another sovereign state should not have executive power in a devolved assembly that forms part of the United Kingdom. If we replaced the word "Irish" with the word "French", the absurdity of the debate would become immediately apparent. As the Minister has often said that the Bill tidies up an anomaly relating to provisions for Commonwealth countries, I might add that the same would apply to substituting the words "Indian", "Australian" or "South African".
  Either we are a sovereign nation or we are not. If the Government do not believe in the future of the nation state, they should say so. If they do, they have no business introducing the Bill. I am grateful for small mercies, but it remains entirely logical that an elected Member of a foreign Parliament should not have even a remote possibility of becoming a member of the executive of a devolved government in the United Kingdom. That makes no sense, even when contemplating matters Irish. One finds one's suspicions entirely confirmed about what the effects of the legislation will be when the Government temporise on matters of this kind.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am concerned about the perception of this proposal in Northern Ireland. In the context of new Articles 2 and 3:
  "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage".
  Article 3 states:
  "It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities".
  1346
  It then properly goes on:
  "recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/00; col. 349].
  That sounds fine. However, I am concerned that we are enabling the introduction of Trojan horses. That is how it will be perceived by people in Northern Ireland. The North/South arrangements are already in place and there are plenty of opportunities—for example, through the Council of the Isles and a hundred other organisations—for a coming together of the two parts of the country, if one views Ireland as one island and not one nation. There are plenty of opportunities perhaps for an eventual change by a majority of the people. However, what is being proposed now goes way ahead of that. It introduces Trojan horses. I believe that that is something that we should identify and resist.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the kind words of support for the government amendment. I have not been overly convinced by the points that have been made to advance the other amendments. I shall run through some of the issues to which they advert.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A. We hold to the point that the argument that he advanced puts forward a cause that does not need to be supported. As I believe I said at the outset, the existing reference to a "Minister" of the Government of Ireland is sufficient to cover any junior Minister in that government. Furthermore, as is widely understood, the term "Junior Minister" is not used in the Irish Government. Therefore, the two amendments would not have any impact or relevance. They do not work in the context of this Bill and they achieve no effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, posed a question in relation to preventing Dail Members becoming Ministers in Northern Ireland. He said that he believed that to go too far. We do not believe that being a Member of the Irish legislature or a Northern Ireland Minister creates the conflict of interest that the noble Lord envisages. We believe that that occurs only in respect of ministerial office or in relation to the chairman and deputy chairman posts set out in the government amendment. Therefore, we do not view that matter in the same way as does the noble Lord.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked a specific question about membership of the police board. Although he anticipates that—
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Will the noble Lord explain why he believes that? As we know, a Minister must make decisions. The noble Lord considers that a Minister might be subject to undue influence or undue pressure because he is a southern Ireland Minister. However, if it is only a question of voting, why are the considerations different? A person may vote subject to influences similar to those which influence a Minister. What is the distinction?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the point which the noble Lord is making.
  Noble Lords: Then answer it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a difficult question to answer. The noble Lord makes a point. I personally believe that there is no conflict. The noble Lord takes a different view. We must agree to differ on that point.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: That really is not an answer. If a Minister is influenced because he is a member of parliament in southern Ireland, why would a member of both parliaments not be equally influenced? They are both likely to be influenced by the same pressures. There is no reason for saying one is influenced and one is not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Ministers are in a different position because they are much more involved in the day-to-day formulating, and giving executive action to policy. Members are different because they are not involved in that. The similarity is, of course, that they are all involved in making decisions.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, it is my recollection, from having been a Member of another place, that there are a number of Members at any given time who would like to be Ministers but have not yet been appointed. Some never are, quite properly. Nevertheless, they are more prepared to agree with the government than their independent judgment might suggest was wise from time to time. There are other considerations too which bear on the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament. I speak as a former Whip.
  In those circumstances, one cannot so easily dismiss this matter by saying that ordinary Members of Parliament are not subject to pressure from their fellows, including Ministers and Whips in their own government. They are. If the Minister is suggesting that only Ministers make important decisions, that is extremely demeaning for Parliament. I realise that Parliament has suffered a lot of difficulties in the past few years and this is another one.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Ministers are in a different position and for that reason we have moved to prevent that possibility. A Minister in two different parliaments clearly could give rise to conflicts of interest caused by collective responsibility but there is not quite the same degree of conflict if one is a member in one and a Minister in the other. I believe that Members of the Committee will accept that that is a fair and reasonable point to make.
  Baroness Blatch: No, we do not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness makes an observation in a sedentary position but she has not joined in the debate.
  1348
  Perhaps I may complete my explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in relation to membership of the police board. The police Bill envisages that the political members of the police board will be appointed in proportion, depending on the strength of seats held by the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly. The strength of that will be unaffected by dual membership and will depend very much on the Assembly elections.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked whether Members of the European Parliament can be Ministers in Northern Ireland. European rules prevent that. It is not UK law. It is something which exists within the rules of the European Parliament. That applies to all EU countries.
  Lord Laird: Perhaps I may clarify the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Rogan. Is the Minister confirming that it is possible to be a Minister in the southern Irish Government and to be a member of the police board?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, that is right. I am confirming that possibility. I believe that that answers the various points which Members of the Committee raised during the course of the debate. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 21:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert ("or of a Commonwealth country").
  The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. This amendment relates to another anomaly which, as the Bill stands, is not being corrected. The amendment provides that Commonwealth Ministers should not be Northern Ireland Ministers. We have already discussed the prospect of southern Irish Ministers not being Northern Ireland Ministers and have agreed about that.
  We have been presented with the theoretical possibility, all day, that members of Commonwealth legislatures might start coming into the House of Commons. That particular charade of the Government's has already been exposed as being extremely threadbare. So far as one can detect, there have been no examples in history of anybody from a Commonwealth legislature being a Member of the House of Commons. Nobody has been able to find an example of that. All the amendment does is to expose that charade a little more. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose that we all have to repeat ourselves during the course of debate. However, the noble Lord is being entirely consistent with his earlier amendments. He will appreciate that the Government's argument for rejecting the amendment is the same as for any of our amendments. They go much further than we believe is necessary to prevent a conflict of interest arising. As such they are contrary to the purpose of the Bill, which, as the noble

  1349
  and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I have said before, is to place Irish citizens in the same position as Commonwealth citizens in recognition of the very close relationship between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments and which, as has been recognised since the Belfast agreement, has brought about many welcome changes. On that basis, we cannot be entirely consistent and accept the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The whole point of the amendment is that, as the Bill stands, the position in respect of the Commonwealth and Ireland is not the same. This is a small point where it is simply not the same. It is no good saying that it is consistent. The Government have been saying all day that we should make the position in respect of Ireland the same as for the Commonwealth, despite the fact that that is not a sensible comparison. Now, when I seek to place Ireland in the same position as the Commonwealth in this respect, they say, "We do not want to be consistent in this respect because we think it is useless and pointless and will never apply". That drives home my point that the analogy with the Commonwealth, which was the foundation of the noble and learned Lord's speech at Second Reading, is rubbish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ("office on becoming a Minister of the Government of Ireland") and insert ("that office on becoming the holder of a disqualifying office.
  ( ) In this section "disqualifying office" means—

  (a) Minister of the Government of Ireland; or

  (b) chairman or deputy chairman of—

  (i) a committee of the Dáil ireann (House of Representatives of Ireland);

  (ii) a committee of the Seanad ireann (Senate of Ireland); or

  (iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland).").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 25A to 29 not moved.]
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 30:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  (". In section 29(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (which requires standing orders of the Assembly to make certain provision with respect to statutory committees), after "committee;" in paragraph (a) insert—
  "(aa) a member of the Assembly who is a Minister of the Government of Ireland or the chairman or deputy chairman of—

  (i) a committee of the Dáil ireann (House of Representatives of Ireland),

  (ii) a committee of the Seanad ireann (Senate of Ireland), or

  1350

  (iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland),

  may not be the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee;".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  (". No person may be a Minister of the Crown, or Leader or other paid officer of the Oposition, if he is a Minister or Junior Minister of the Government of Ireland.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 31 is exactly the same in substance as Amendment No. 13, tabled by the Liberal Democrats and discussed earlier. As we saw, they evidently changed their mind since consideration in another place and so there is no point in pursuing it at this hour. Amendment No. 32 is virtually the same as Amendment No. 12, which we have also already discussed. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lord is not pursuing the amendment at this stage, I shall not respond.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
  Lord Laird Lord Laird had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33A:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  MEMBERSHIP OF NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY COMMISSION
  (". After section 10 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there shall be inserted—
  "(11) No person may be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission if he is a Minister of the Government or a member of the legislature of Ireland."").
  The noble Lord said: In view of what the Minister said, which was reasonably favourable, I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 33A not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
  Lord Laird Lord Laird had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35A:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  RESTRICTIONS ON CONFIRMATION OR APPROVAL OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
  (".—(1) A person who is a Minister of the Government of Ireland, or of a Commonwealth country, has no power to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation, or to do any act so far as the legislation or act, which—

  (a) is incompatible with any of the Convention rights;

  (b) is incompatible with Community law;

  (c) discriminates against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion;

  (d) in the case of an act, aids or incites another person to discriminate against a person or class of person on that ground; or

  1351

  (e) in the ease of legislation, modifies an enactment in breach of section 7 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  (2) "the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.").
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise to the Committee, I have only recently been following the procedures on this Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Laird. I have advised the noble Lord that I am, in turn, advised by the authorities that Amendment No. 35A is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Bill. I did forewarn the noble Lord that I would say this and the House authorities also so warned him.
  I can only repeat, as I am sure is familiar to the Committee, that the Companion to the Standing Orders states that amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. It makes it clear further that the advice of the Clerks should be taken in relation to matters such as these. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office advised me, and I believe advised the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that, as this Bill is confined to matters relating to disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the holding of certain offices, but this amendment seeks to act on participation in certain kinds of Assembly business—namely, to prevent a Minister of the government of Ireland or of a Commonwealth country confirming or approving subordinate legislation—it follows that the amendment is not relevant to the Bill.
  As Members of the Committee will be aware, our procedures in the House are governed by the House as a whole and not by any one individual, and as a consequence the House has a collective responsibility to ensure that our procedures are followed. I intervene at this time for that purpose. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Laird, to accept the advice the Clerks offered to him and to me, and not to move Amendment No. 35A.
  Lord Laird: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks and everybody involved in this matter. I accept the advice which has been supplied to me and I shall not move the amendment. The purpose in tabling new Clause 4 was to make the point that there is a very high standard to which Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly operate. At present, Northern Ireland Ministers and departments are strictly forbidden by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 from doing anything that would infringe human rights arising from the European Convention.
  Through the implementation by the British Government of the Belfast agreement, our own Northern Ireland Ministers have extensive human rights obligations but their Irish counterparts do not. Unlike the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic has not yet incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into its own domestic law, nor has the Republic of Ireland fulfilled its obligation under the Belfast agreement to ensure that at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as those which will pertain in Northern Ireland. Under the Belfast agreement, the Irish Government have a duty to
  1352
  establish a human rights commission with the mandate and remit equivalent to that within Northern Ireland. No such commission has yet been created in the Irish Republic. Consequently, a joint committee of representatives of the two human rights commissions has not yet materialised, even though the Belfast agreement was created two-and-a-half years ago.
  We are enormously disappointed by the slow progress made in respect of human rights in the Irish Republic. It is more than two years since the passing of the Belfast agreement, but so far the Republic has totally failed. Consequently, we in Northern Ireland can have no confidence that Irish Ministers sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly would appreciate the significance that we have in Northern Ireland of upholding fundamental human rights. There must be equality of treatment between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Ministers who take their seats.
  I shall be looking at another way of bringing forward an amendment at Report stage. I shall have discussions with the relevant authorities.
  [Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
  Clause 4 [Short title]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 36:
  Clause 4, page 2, line 1, after ("Disqualifications") insert ("(Ministers and Members of the Legislature of Ireland)").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make the citation under which the Bill is to be known, if it is passed, which I hope it is not, that much clearer. It suggests that it should be cited as the
  "Disqualifications … Ministers and Members of the Legislature of Ireland Act 2000".
  Otherwise it will not be clear to anyone who looks at the Bill among others what it is all about. That is the purpose of the citation. It seemed to me that slightly fuller wording was necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This would have been a consequential amendment required only if amendments relating to Irish Ministers and members of the Irish parliament had been accepted. As no amendments to the Bill referring to Ministers and members of the legislature of Ireland have been accepted, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. For those reasons, it should be rejected.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: We accepted Amendment No. 25 as regards Ministers and the Government of Ireland not very long ago. The amendment may not be perfect, but it is not quite as bad as the Minister suggests. I shall consider the drafting between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 38:
  In the Title, line 2, after ("Commons") insert (", the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to make the Title more accurate. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, this is a consequential amendment which would have been required if Amendment No. 33 had been accepted. However, as Amendment No. 33 was not accepted there is no good cause to have a reference to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment is both irrelevant and unnecessary and I ask the Committee to reject it.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I invite the noble Lord to say whether he recognises that some of us feel, not altogether light heartedly, that it might be justified to insert into the Title the words "and who has asked for it?". Throughout our proceedings today we have tried, I hope courteously, and, alas, at the expense of inciting the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on the Liberal Democrat Benches to discover who has asked for the Bill. We have not succeeded.
  Will the Minister say that between now and the next stage of the Bill, whenever that might be—I hope it will not be the usual period of six months—that the answer, or the refusal to answer, will be reconsidered? It is high time that we were told who has asked for the Bill. Failing that, we should be told why it is considered to be irrelevant, if that be the case.
  During our debate today I have had in mind the couplet from a hymn which I believe was written by the divine John Donne.
  "Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws
  Makes that and th' action fine".
  My noble friend Lord Cranborne tells me that it was written by George Herbert. The Bill is said to be a tidying up operation and today we have been looking at the room which the Government seek to tidy up. No one in living memory has occupied that room; no one sweeps a room which has never been occupied unless they have a good reason for supposing that it will be—and that quite shortly. If so, by whom?
  We want to know in whose name is the room being swept. If the Minister cannot answer tonight—I should have thought that it was a simple question—I hope that he will answer as soon as an opportunity arises at the next stage.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I had thought that the Minister, or the noble and learned Lord, was going to answer.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was simply going to observe that the noble and learned Lord's speech was entertaining and consistent in its persistency, but it did not address the matter before the Committee, which was the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: That produced a short if more interesting debate than I had anticipated. It also left unanswered one of the important questions we have asked in different forms all day. That is the question to which we shall continue to seek an answer at later stages. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 40:
  In the Title, line 3, leave out ("and").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 43:
  In the Title, line 5, at end insert ("or chairmen or deputy chairmen of committees of the Dáil Eireann or the Seanad Eireann or of joint committees of the Oireachtas; and to make provision with respect to who may he chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the promoters of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That on the fifth sitting day in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill presented in this House in the present Session;
That on the next sitting day following presentation the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House;
That in the next Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
That all petitions relating to the Bill which stand referred to the committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
That, in relation to the Bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.