Northern Ireland Bill

House of Commons, 18 November 1998.

TRANSFERRED, EXCEPTED AND RESERVED MATTERS

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 56 and 222 to 270.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Without touching on the time allowed for the amendments, which was properly dealt with in a previous debate, I wish to touch on the nature of the amendments that the House will consider in the next few hours. Most of them are drafting or technical amendments, and I shall refer to them in detail shortly. We will deal with three types of amendment tonight. Some are essentially technical. It was necessary that the other place dealt with the changes because the Bill was drawn up in haste. Indeed, I pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen and to all those involved in drawing up the legislation in such a short time. The Bill was designed to enact an agreement and, inevitably, detailed, technical amendments were necessary because it was drafted in such a short time. Amendments came before the House and the other place earlier in the Bill's progress and hon. Members who were present for those debates will recall that my ministerial colleagues and I said that they would be necessary. This Session has lasted as long as it has because of the nature of that parliamentary process and the significance that the House of Commons attaches to the agreement. The second type of amendments relate specifically to the points made during the Bill's passage through Parliament. Members on both sides of the House withdrew amendments on the basis that the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues and I would think again. We reflected on the points that had been made, and then Lord Dubs introduced amendments in the other place. Many of the amendments therefore result from representations made to the Government by hon. Members and others. The third type of amendments arise as a direct result of consultation. Some thought that the consultation was not adequate, and others have kindly said that they thought it was. One cannot satisfy all the people all the time, but hon. Members will understand that my door was always open; and if any hon. Members wished to discuss with me any issue arising from the Bill, they were able to do so. Many meetings were held with parties, hon. Members and others who expressed an interest in the Bill. In 11 years in the House, I have never experienced a similar level of consultation. Indeed, although we had consultation over the Scottish and Welsh legislation, it was not the same as on the Bill for Northern Ireland, because it enacts the agreement. In the end, the Government had to decide on the form that the amendments would take, and we have sometimes pleased some people and sometimes displeased them. If there was no clear sign in the agreement, we had to try to work out whether we could have obtained a consensus on a particular issue had the talks continued. That was sometimes difficult to discover. In many cases, and sometimes on controversial issues, there was unanimity, and I shall list those cases as I go through the amendments before us. I shall tell the House on which amendments every party in Northern Ireland that wished to consult with me agreed. Sometimes, some parties disagreed, but that was not always the case—it is important to put that on record because of the large number of amendments. I sat for several years on the shadow Front Bench, and I should have been the first to exactly the opposite if I had thought that that was not so. We are reflecting concerns as far as we can. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment, which makes it clear that any matters may be transferred out of schedule 3, which lists reserved matters, that fall within the description given there. Amendment No. 56 creates a new clause out of the old clause 20(4)(b), the drafting of which was defective. Amendments Nos. 222 to 270 bear on schedules 2 and 3. We have had to do some tidying up of those schedules, and a number of the amendments are purely drafting or technical points, or are designed to clarify matters that were perhaps open to uncertainty. Other amendments add new matters to the schedules, including new subjects such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland and "assisted areas" under the Industrial Development Act 1982. In other cases, we have had to bring some descriptions up to date, including those of international relations, broadcasting and telecommunications, including the internet. In one or two other cases, it has made sense to move matters from one category into another. For example, we thought it right to move the regulation of activities in outer space from the reserved to the excepted category. That was not, of course, a matter much discussed in the agreement or at the talks. Amendments Nos. 242 and 270 rationalise the way in which the provisions of the Bill are safeguarded against modification by the Assembly. Most of the amendments are technical.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I want to ask a question about amendment No. 240, which refers to regulation of sea fishing outside the Northern Ireland zone (except in relation to Northern Ireland fishing boats)", which are defined in the way we would expect them to be. May I plead for parity of esteem among the fishing industries of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

And the Isle of Man.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

As my hon. Friend says, the Isle of Man should be included, too. The Minister knows that the Northern Ireland fishing industry—specifically the catching sector—is much smaller than the Scottish industry. I seek an assurance that fishing communities in Northern Ireland will enjoy parity of esteem with Scottish, English and Welsh communities when negotiations take place in Brussels and in London on total allowable catches and other such matters. My hon. Friend may wish to write to me, but I seek an assurance in principle for now.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

If my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is patient, he will hear me speak about the fishing industry under the next group of amendments. I hope that I shall not have to write to him. I am grateful for the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik). I, too, have visited Armagh observatory. It was the first observatory I had been to, and it was an extremely valuable visit. The observatory is a great educational asset for Northern Ireland. Activities in outer space have been moved from the reserved to the excepted category because that is the case in Scotland. Amendment No. 241 refers to launching into space, so that it would be possible, eventually, for Northern Ireland—and Scotland for that matter—to take part in such activities. Putting on for a moment my other hat, as a Finance Minister, I should add that I have not set aside any money for such activities in the forthcoming financial year.

ACTS OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The amendments provide a group of miscellaneous changes to part H of the Bill, which concerns legislative powers. They are, again, mostly of technical or drafting significance. I draw attention to two sets of amendments, both of which are based on the Scotland Bill. There are provisions, starting with amendment No. 11, to permit the Northern Ireland Assembly to regulate fishing in a Northern Ireland zone, and to allow it jurisdiction over Northern Ireland-licensed boats beyond that, which is the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred earlier. Amendment No. 11 relates to clause 6, and provides that Her Majesty may by Order in Council"— subject to affirmative resolution at Westminster— specify functions which are to be treated … as … exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland. That is one of several amendments throughout the Bill to permit the Northern Ireland authorities to regulate fishing in a Northern Ireland zone. The designation of the zone is provided for under amendment No. 219, and the Northern Ireland authorities could be given power as respects Northern Ireland-licensed boats, even outside the zone. The amendments parallel arrangements in the Scotland Bill. There is also a procedure by which the Assembly can reconsider a Bill that has been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under clause 10, and which the Committee has then referred to the European Court.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendments have two purposes: first, to ensure that the interests of defence, national security, public order and public safety are properly safeguarded under the new devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland and, secondly, to protect the operation of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 25 provides that the Secretary of State may decline to submit an Assembly Bill for Royal Assent if she considers it to be incompatible with any international obligations, the interests of defence or national security, the protection of public safety or public order, or with the operation of the UK single market. Amendment No. 60 is closely related, and gives the Secretary of State power to revoke subordinate legislation for the same reasons. Hon. Members will want to be aware that the Scotland Bill also contains provisions for ensuring that legislation meets international obligations and safeguards national security, so the amendments make the Bill compatible with the Scotland Bill, although the provisions are not directly equivalent. It is worth while outlining the important principle of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom. Under European Community law, the Assembly and Northern Ireland Ministers will be required to meet obligations under EC single market legislation in transferred areas; that will include not discriminating against goods and services from any other member state of the European Union. Community legislation enforces a single market between EU member states, but not necessarily within each member state. The amendments seek to fill that gap, since it is only right that goods and services from England, Wales and Scotland should be treated no less favourably than those from other EU member states. Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 deal with the Secretary of State's power to direct that certain action be taken by Ministers or Departments or to direct that proposed action is not taken. When the Bill left the House previously, clause 20 enabled the Secretary of State to exercise that power only to comply with international obligations. The amendments extend that responsibility so that the interests of defence, national security, public order and public safety are also protected. The Government consider the amendments to be important and necessary. It is a vital responsibility of Government to safeguard the interests of defence and national security and to protect public order and public safety. That responsibility extends throughout the United Kingdom and will continue to do so after devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The amendments ensure that the Secretary of State has a means of continuing to discharge her responsibilities in respect of those matters after devolution. Although I of course hope that no situation would ever arise in which the interests of defence, national security, public order or public safety were in danger of being compromised, the nature of the subjects is such that it would be entirely inappropriate even to leave open that possibility. The consequences are potentially too serious. The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to act speedily if an urgent issue were to arise. Clearly, it is not possible to describe all the circumstances in which such an issue may arise. Many areas to be governed by Assembly legislation will need to contain ancillary provisions on national security. For example, orders as diverse as the Litter Order 1993, the Food Safety Order 1991 and the Electricity Order 1991 have included provisions such as an override of the powers of entry to protect sensitive areas. We need to ensure that proper provisions continue to be made in that wide-ranging field. I emphasise to the House that those provisions, by their very nature, will be used by the Government only as a last resort. If an issue were to arise which caused concern, every effort would be made to resolve it through consultation with the Northern Ireland Administration. If, and only if, that were not possible would the Secretary of State use that power of direction. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is important that such a power is available. I commend the amendments to the House.

FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 32.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall deal with the amendments slightly out of order and speak first to amendments Nos. 29 and 30, which deal with concerns raised during earlier stages of the House's consideration of the Bill about the impact of a vacancy in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts. As the Bill stood, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister needed to make decisions jointly. If one ceased to hold office, the other automatically did so too. That would then be followed by a new election for First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That was considered during the proceedings on the Bill and concerns were raised by a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), whom I am pleased to see here this evening. He has followed the Bill through its many stages. Those Members suggested that the Bill could give rise to a vacuum at the centre of the devolved Government. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister play an important role, and it would be awkward if the posts were vacant at a time when joint decisions were needed. The new provisions prevent such a vacuum from occurring by enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint alternates from among the Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise functions during their absence through illness or incapacity or during a vacancy. Under the amendments, if either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister post fell vacant, the other would too, but the alternate and the remaining postholder would continue to exercise the functions of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly in a caretaker capacity until a fresh election had been held. In the event of absence or incapacity, the amendments provide that the alternate would not be able to exercise the functions of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister for a period exceeding six weeks. That time would be used to deal with any concerns raised. Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 31 and 32 clarify the Bill's provisions, making it clear that the Assembly is to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of the vacancy. I commend the amendments to the House.

New clause

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The amendments deal with a technical but extremely important part of the Bill—the workings of the d'Hondt formula for appointing Ministers. I had never heard of d'Hondt until I went into the talks process, but we hear of nothing else nowadays. As hon. Members know, d'Hondt refers to the system by which members of the Executive—the Ministers for Northern Ireland— will eventually be appointed. Essentially, they will be appointed on the basis of the electoral strength of their party as a consequence of the Assembly elections. Many of the amendments that we are considering in this regard reflect points made during previous consideration in Committee and in the House on Report. Other amendments are technical, reflecting the complexity of the subject matter. As I said on Report and Third Reading, the provisions on the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula should be re-run needed amendment in order to reflect the spirit of the agreement fully. Amendment No. 33 sets out the circumstances in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make a determination, as it is called, setting out the number of ministerial posts, and the functions exercisable by the holders of those posts. Those determinations need to be approved by the Assembly on a cross-community basis. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be able to introduce determinations when they choose, but they must do so if legislation has been passed creating or dissolving a Northern Ireland department, as it would clearly be wrong to create a new department without ensuring that it had a Minister in charge of it. In addition to new determinations to reflect what we might call the machinery of government changes, the Bill also needs provision for the d'Hondt formula to be rerun within the existing framework of departmental responsibility—a matter that was of great interest to hon. Members in Committee. The series of amendments to clause 15, and in particular amendment No. 34, concern the circumstances in which the formula would be re-run. As hon. Members will know by now, the d'Hondt formula is a means of allocating posts proportionally. The formula will obviously therefore need to be re-run after every Assembly election to take account of new electoral mandates. In addition, amendment No. 34 provides for re-runs in other circumstances—for example, when a party is excluded from office, leaving its seats vacant, or when a party's period of exclusion comes to an end and its entitlement to hold office has to be accommodated. The Assembly will also be able to set out in its Standing Orders other circumstances when d'Hondt could be re-run. It is for the Members of the Assembly to determine what those circumstances will be. I understand that the Standing Orders Committee of the Assembly is examining the issues and will continue to do so. The other amendments deal with technical issues, such as what happens when a party declines to provide a nominee for a post to which it is entitled, a definition of a registered political party and a provision that nominating officers may delegate their powers only to officers of their party who are also members of the Assembly. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are particularly loved, I guess, by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who referred to an anorak when he spoke about them previously, as only he understood the algebraic formulas. I now refer to S and how to define it. It is the figure in the d'Hondt formula reflecting the number of seats that the party has in the Assembly. The revised definition—I am delighted that we do not have to deal with this in the Welsh Assembly—defines S as the number of seats that a party held at the first meeting of the Assembly. We believe that it is right in determining party representation in the Executive Committee to base the calculation on the electoral mandate that the party received in the Assembly election. Amendment No. 373 is a transitional provision, and ensures that any determination on the number of ministerial posts made during the shadow phase carries forward after devolution. The reason for the d'Hondt formula, and for S and the algebra, is important. The purpose is to ensure confidence across the community in Northern Ireland, so that people know that their parties will, if they receive a sufficient mandate in the election, have the opportunity for their Members to become Ministers and play their part in the Executive Committee. The referendum was successful for that reason. The formula gives both sides of the community—and others who believe that they do not belong to either of the traditional communities—the opportunity to play their part in the government of Northern Ireland. As I see the Assembly working, I believe that the overwhelming number of its Members—whatever party they represent—have the interests of their constituents at heart. When those Members must eventually decide their priorities, budgets and policies on hospitals, roads and so on, we will be in a position to say—hand on heart—that the system is satisfactory across the political and religious divide. That is why we chose the d'Hondt formula, that is why the people voted for it, and that is why I commend the amendments to the House.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

With knee breeches, tights and silver-buckle shoes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When I raised this issue during earlier debate on the Bill, I asked the Minister whether he would reconsider and include in the legislation a specific requirement to re-run the formula when party numbers changed within the Assembly to such an extent that they impacted on the number of Ministers, chairmen or vice-chairmen from a particular party. Rather than assisting us in that matter, the Minister has done the reverse: he has enshrined in even more definite terms the requirement that the original formula should stand. That is nonsense, and the Minister has sown the seeds of the Assembly's destruction. I invite him to consider circumstances in which Assembly Members change party in such significant numbers that it affects the number of ministerial and other Assembly posts to which that party is entitled. Under the Bill as framed, that party would not be able to gain the additional posts to which it would be entitled numerically. At that stage, the Executive would not have the power to vote through their own legislation against parties that had been badly done by in those circumstances. A party deprived of ministerial posts because of the insistence on this formula could hold the entire Assembly to ransom and, because of the cross-community rule, prevent decisions from being taken. The Minister has made this short-sighted determination for only one political purpose. He knows that the most likely movement within the Assembly would be away from the Ulster Unionist party faction led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The Minister knows that his agreement would flounder in circumstances in which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann lost numerical strength in the Assembly. Therefore, without any democratic support in the Assembly, the Minister hopes that he can allow the right hon. Gentleman to hold on to office, but he does that only through trickery in the Bill, not through a democratic vote in the Assembly. It is altogether wrong that the Minister takes that course. It is too late to urge the Minister to think again, because he has taken the matter on an entirely political basis. I entirely oppose what he has done—it is undemocratic. There is no need for any hon. Member to rejoice and think that the Minister is upholding democratic principles. He is not; he is ensuring that, whatever the results at an election, no change will take place in the Assembly thereafter, no matter how much people depart from their manifesto commitments. The Minister has done a disservice to the House by supporting the amendment and by insisting that the democratic will of the Assembly would be defied in such circumstances. Voting against the amendment would have no impact, other than to reduce the time available for us to speak under this tight schedule. I oppose the measure, but will not be voting on the issue, simply because of time.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Does the Minister agree that the formula enshrined in the amendment copper-fastens in statute the will of the people, as distinct from the will and the manipulative processes of political parties within the Assembly? Does he also agree that the result of the elections to the Assembly is the will of the people embodied and expressed in the number of seats gained by each party? Surely that is the most democratic expression of what the people want and the way in which the Bill allows for the allocation of ministerial seats by the d'Hondt principle. It is not appropriate for the Bill to provide for the manipulations of parties that are trying to pressurise elected Members to move from one block to another for the purpose of frustrating the agreement, the election and the will of the people.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister had never heard of d'Hondt. All I can tell him is that he should have a look at that Assembly in Strasbourg; he would know perfectly well that such things happen all the time under the d'Hondt system. Members of the Minister's party have been removed from office and from Committees because of changes in the alignment of Members of the European Parliament. That goes on all the time under the d'Hondt system. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) to tell us that that would be a terrible thing, because the d'Hondt system in the European Parliament works in exactly that way. There are all sorts of changes: people from other countries suddenly say that they are no longer affiliated to a certain political grouping, resign and join another grouping. If there are enough resignations, all the chairmanships of every Committee of the European Parliament have to change accordingly. The European Parliament is always being pointed to as something to be admired, followed and looked up to. The Labour party is dropping a lot of people for the next election, and it will have a lot of other people elected, so it has wide experience of this. The Minister argues that we should adopt the d'Hondt principle, but then he copper-fastens an election for four years. A lot can happen in four years; if such changes happened in this House, the hon. Member for South Down would not say that this House was undemocratic. If they happened in the Dail—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would carry a flag for the democracy of the Dail—it would be all right; and it has happened in the Dail. I remember a member of Fine Gael who suddenly discovered that he was going to be a member of Fianna Fail, and it changed the whole Government. Of course, he got a good payment, because he was made a Commissioner for Europe and got a grand handshake twice of £60,000, so it was a good deal, but such changes happen under the d'Hondt system, and the House should be aware of it. I noticed that the Minister shook his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) talked about the measure sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Assembly. Say, for example, that 28 Unionists disagree with what is happening: technically, they line up behind the First Minister designate. Among them, about eight or nine are completely unhappy. When it comes to a cross-community vote and they vote under the cross-community system, there is no cross-community consensus. Under the rule that the Minister is introducing, the only way out of that difficulty—we have discussed it in Committee—is to have an election. Will that lead to the stability of Northern Ireland? Why can the d'Hondt principle not be followed through, as it is in Europe? The European Parliament runs for its full term. Those who are members of that Parliament have the happy knowledge of when there is going to be another election; it is not like here, where we do not know when the election will be. Why cannot that system be followed? Therefore, to say that the measure will remedy the position is incorrect. If the situation is as the Minister wants to have it, when it comes to the division, we are going to have an election, and, after the election, the seats will be allocated in keeping with the d'Hondt principle; so what is the use of trying to put off the evil day if there is a rigid divide in the Assembly? Say, for example—not that it is likely—that a section of the Social Democratic and Labour party joined Sinn Fein. What would happen then? It may be possible, although I do not think that it is likely: I know that the hon. Member for South Down will not be joining Sinn Fein. However, what I am saying is that that could happen. Therefore, it would far better to follow the d'Hondt principle clearly through the whole system.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

One of the difficulties faced by the consensual arrangement under the agreement for allegedly creating democratic institutions in Northern Ireland is the absence of an effective opposition. Everyone except several minor parties that will never, by their votes, be able to change anything, will be in the Government, and they will be in the Government on the application of the d'Hondt principles. Therefore, one of the weaknesses of the entire system that has been set up under the Bill and under the agreement is the inability of parties or people to change anything within the period, or the initial period, of the Assembly's lifetime. Everyone will be in government, so, effectively, the Government will at no time be the subject of criticism. Many people say that that is the difficulty that one has to suffer to provide some institutions that will be generally accepted on a cross-community basis, but that is no reason why one should set in stone provisions that effectively prevent the dangers of those institutions from being ameliorated. For example, at present the Unionist side contains 28 Ulster Unionists and two members of the Progressive Unionist party who are genuinely in favour of the agreement. There are 28 members of the Assembly–20 in the Democratic Unionist party, five in the UK Unionist party and three in the United Unionist party. Thus, when a crucial issue arises, there will be two groups, one with 30 votes and one with 28. 9 pm One of the issues that may lead to a serious realignment of that grouping is decommissioning. The way in which the First Minister deals with decommissioning could cause a substantial number of members of his party to join the 28 who are saying no. Under these proposals, however, because the First Minister had 28 members to start with, he would probably be entitled to three Ministries. Even if, as a result of some change within his party, he finished up with 10 members of his party who were willing to support him, he would still, apparently, be able to continue with three Ministers. That is a ludicrous situation, which should not be permitted, but, if the assignment of Ministries, under the d'Hondt arrangements, is pinned for all time to the number of members elected to the party concerned at the date of the election, it is effectively what will happen. Such arrangements will prevent anyone being able to change the number of representatives as Ministers in the Executive, because they will be pinned to a certain point in time—the date of the election. In such circumstances, the absence of flexibility may even bring about what many people, perhaps the majority, would not want: the collapse of the Assembly. If a minority party has three Ministers, and a group with 40 or 50 members only two Ministers, difficulties will arise. That would be such an insult to the democratic process as to be patently unworkable. In the interests not of defeating the Assembly but of giving it a flexibility that will reflect the basic demands of democracy, and perhaps preserving it, I ask Ministers to think again about placing in tablets of stone the entitlement of Members of the Assembly under the d'Hondt principles, and pinning that entitlement to events at the date of the election, which may not, at the relevant time, reflect what Assembly members—or a majority group of them—would want.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for their support on some of the issues that we are discussing. Let me make a few points about what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I do not think that I am sowing the seeds of destruction of the Assembly. That is far from my mind. The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to "my" agreement. It is not my agreement; it is the people's agreement. They voted for it in the referendum. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the idea of rerunning d'Hondt during a period when the Assembly was in office. He raised the issue in the House, as did his colleagues, during consultation. However, the other parties in Northern Ireland did not share his view. He is probably not surprised about that—it is politics. The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that I was taking a political decision. However, the other place took a decision on this group of Lords amendments, and the House will take a decision on it. As a consequence of our consultation, we tell the House that we believe that the best course of action is that d'Hondt should be re-run only in the circumstances to which I have referred. The Assembly itself, using its own standing orders, can determine the precise basis of any other circumstances. I think that people in Northern Ireland will understand full well when they vote for parties that—because of the system in which we are currently engaged in Northern Ireland, under d'Hondt—ministerial responsibilities will be established in accordance with the electoral mandate. That is a very straightforward point. The hon. Member for North Antrim made comparisons with Europe. As I have been investigating d'Hondt, I have been interested in how other legislatures, particularly in Europe, have dealt with it. There are, of course, differences. We are dealing with d'Hondt in the context of an entirely new political agreement, and of all the other aspects that such an agreement entails. The situation in Europe is very different. Although the system is the same, it is operating within a different context. I think that the Government have taken the right decision, and I hope that the House agrees with us. The other place has agreed with us. I sincerely hope that the public will understand our reasons. I have no doubt that some hon. Members will not agree with me, but they will be able to make their points forcefully in the Assembly itself when it considers the matters.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I suspect that there may be some disagreement in the House on this group of amendments too, but we shall see what hon. Members have to say about it. We discussed the issue of junior Ministers with every party in Northern Ireland, and it has been debated in the other place. When we debated the Bill before the summer recess, we touched on the issue. Unfortunately, the talks process did not get around to talking and dealing in depth with the issue. Consequently, the agreement is effectively silent on junior Ministers. The new clause and consequential amendments would enable the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly to decide to have junior Ministers in addition to the junior Northern Ireland Ministers provided for in the Bill. As I said, there is nothing in the agreement about junior Ministers, although they are provided for in Scotland, were a feature of previous devolved government in Northern Ireland, and are, of course, a feature at Westminster. In subsequent meetings with the parties, there has been some strong support for some provision in the Bill for the appointment of junior Ministers. There has been no disagreement on the principle, although there has been disagreement on the methods by which they are to be appointed. Accordingly, the new clause provides for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to make a determination that may cover the number, functions and methods of appointment of junior Ministers—who, of course, must be Members of the Assembly. Such a joint determination would not take effect—this is very important—until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly itself. The other amendments in the group are consequential. They would subject junior Ministers to clause 23's provisions on exclusion from office. They provide that junior Ministers, like Northern Ireland Ministers, cannot serve as Chairmen or Deputy Chairmen of Committees. Last, but not least, the amendment to clause 38 would enable junior Ministers to be paid extra. Amendment No. 364 subjects junior Ministers, as well as Northern Ireland Ministers, to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Amendment No. 374 is a transitional amendment, providing that any determination on junior Ministers during the shadow period is carried forward after devolution. It is for the Assembly to deal with the nature of junior Ministers by internal debate.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Nothing in the amendment makes it clear that that will be done by the d'Hondt principle. The amendment leaves the nomination in the hands of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Subsection (1)(b) of the new clause to be inserted after clause 15 refers to the functions exercised by Ministers. If a Minister had responsibility for fisheries, would that responsibility be confined to the Northern Ireland fishing zone? I have engaged in debate with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. and old Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the issue before, and, as everybody knows, many Northern Ireland fishermen fish outwith the Northern Ireland fisheries zone. A few years ago, a Northern Ireland fishing boat was almost dragged down by a nuclear submarine, and that happened far closer to Wemyss Bay than to Ballycastle or anywhere else in Northern Ireland. The livelihood of fishermen in Northern Ireland is largely determined by decisions taken at meetings of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels. Will the Minister tell me what role a Fisheries Minister from the Northern Ireland Assembly would play in relation to those meetings? That subject caused much concern during the passage of the Scotland Bill. Perhaps the Minister has already dealt with the matter in one of our debates that I missed. If so, I apologise to him, and to the House for detaining it unnecessarily—but I want to know whether the Fisheries Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly will be involved in the deliberations of the Council of Fisheries Ministers. Will there be a concordat, as is to be established between the Fisheries Ministers in Edinburgh and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Hon. Members from Northern Ireland may say that they are well able to look after the interests of their fishermen in this place, through the Fisheries Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I think that the Fisheries Minister here should be supported in Europe by the Ministers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because only those Ministers will understand the full situation and be able argue it properly and forcefully in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, because, as he knows, such decisions are taken in Europe, and they cannot be taken properly unless the Committee concerned, which makes the recommendation to the Commission, has the full information. I believe that the Ministers from the various Assemblies are the people who will have that full information.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

As I said, we have often engaged in exchanges on that subject. I remember the hon. Gentleman complaining when a Fisheries Minister from the Irish Republic got more for his people than had been obtained by the Fisheries Minister responsible to this House. I think that the Fisheries Ministers in the two Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament will have to work in close harmony with the Fisheries Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture. That Minister is the lead Minister for the United Kingdom at meetings of the Fisheries Council, but he or she must pay close and sympathetic attention to the concerns of the fishermen of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

There will also be the Council of the Isles in one form or another. The Minister in the Republic will be involved too, so there will be a ministerial relationship between Dublin and Westminster, and also between Belfast and Dublin. Perhaps we could develop a unified British Isles attitude towards fishing.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the amendment relates to the appointment of junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Have the matters recently under discussion any relevance to that issue?

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I would not dare to step out of order with your formidable presence in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Currently, a Minister in the Northern Ireland office has responsibility for agriculture and fisheries, and some of those responsibilities will be handed over to a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Is the Minister with that responsibility being confined to the management of the fisheries within the Northern Ireland fisheries zone, which were referred to earlier? These are important issues for our fishing communities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I said in a recent speech in Scotland that I thought that one of the major issues to be determined at meetings of the Council of the Isles—or the British-Irish Council—was pollution in the seas between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the seas between England and Wales and the Republic. That is another very important issue for our fishermen. I do not want to detain the House, but the Minister is aware of my interest in the management of fisheries. I would hope to see the development of a concordat between the lead Minister in the United Kingdom's Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers from Scotland, Belfast and Cardiff. I am seeking that assurance from my hon. Friend, and I hope the Ministers from the Assemblies and the Parliament will play an important role vis-a-vis the deliberations and decisions taken in Brussels.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister was right to say that few, if any, in the House would oppose on principle the possibility of there being junior Ministers in the Assembly. However, the necessity for junior Ministers in the Assembly might depend entirely on the number of Departments there are and the degree of responsibility that Minsters have. If, for instance, there were only four or five Ministers, one could argue a good case as to why they should be given some assistance and support from junior Ministers. If, on the other hand, the full complement permitted under the Bill of 10 Departments—and therefore 10 Ministers—were to be taken up, the case begins to diminish. At present, we have two Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who do all of the work that would be transferred under the Bill. About half of the duties of the two Ministers, who are sitting on the Front Bench, would be in matters which are to be transferred—roughly speaking. That means that, in total, we have the equivalent of three existing Ministers who are doing the work. However, under the provisions of the Bill, there could be 10 Ministers in the Departments, a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and, on top of that, a plethora of junior Ministers who could also be appointed. I happen to come from the school of thought that says that one Ulster man can do what three English, Scottish or Welsh men could do, but this proposal seems to be putting that in reverse. Perhaps a dozen or so Ulster men will take over what, effectively, three English, Scottish and Welsh Ministers are doing at present. The case for junior Ministers still has to be argued, although, in fairness, it must be said that the visibility and closeness of Northern Ireland Ministers will probably mean that they have much more work to do than existing Ministers. They will not be able to hide or escape as easily as present Ministers have been wont to do, and their availability will increase their work load. Of course, the experiences on which I draw apply to both sides of the House. Although I agree with the principle that there is no reason that there should not be junior Ministers, 1 am not convinced that a case is to be made for having them. Such a case could be made only after the existing Departments have been working for some time and the work load that falls on the shoulders of Ministers and the Deputy First and First Ministers can be properly assessed. Junior Ministers will not be working within the 10 Departments as some people have suggested. That is not present thinking among those who are meeting at Stormont. Their view is that junior Ministers should work entirely in the central office and, effectively, take on tasks that run across Departments—for instance, Europe, equality issues and matters that would impinge on more than one departmental responsibility. The notion that departmental Ministers will each have a junior Minister is wrong. Indeed, under the system that the Minister of State is to throw upon our laps, it would be a disaster. Can one imagine the possibility of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister deciding to appoint a Sinn Fein junior Minister to a Department that had a Democratic Unionist party Minister? One does not need to think about that too long to realise the problems that could arise. Yet, if appointments are left solely to the discretion of the First and Deputy First Ministers, that and many other conflicts could occur. I have read through the agreement in great detail many times. The parties who were signatories to it seemed to accept the principle that the d'Hondt method of appointment should be used for posts within the Assembly—whether ministerial, a chairmanship or a deputy chairmanship. Clearly, the system was laid out in the agreement. If it is right that a Deputy Chairman should be appointed under d'Hondt, it must be right that a junior Minister should be similarly appointed. Why are the Government not consistent? Why do they not follow through what was clearly the established principle within the agreement? Once again, the Government are attempting to prop up a certain political cabal within the Assembly. The Minister recognises that a certain person does not have much support at present and that he needs to prop him up. So what does the hon. Gentleman do? He provides him with the instrument that Governments often use to prop themselves up—patronage. He allows him to have the instrument that he can use to keep people in line. So, having ensured in the previous set of amendments that no changes can take place, even if all but one of the Members' party move to another group, the hon. Gentleman is now allowing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister a mechanism whereby they can effectively buy support within the Assembly. Again, that is not good for the democratic process. If the Bill does not expressly indicate what positions there could be within the Assembly, will the Minister say whether the Assembly is entitled to create those positions? Is that sound under the Bill? For example, if there are 10 Ministers, a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and, perhaps, 12 junior Ministers for all we know, will the First Minister and Deputy First Minister be permitted to have parliamentary private secretaries? Can the patronage be extended beyond what is contemplated in the Bill if the Assembly and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister propose it? I hope that the Minister will respond to that question, too.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.5 million people. It has a devolved Assembly containing 108 elected Members and 26 local councils. Under the Bill, it will be subjected to a raft of implementation bodies, which are designed to bring about some consensual ecumenicism between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It will also send members to the Council of the British Isles. In other words, Northern Ireland will become the most over-governed, most expensive and over-administrated piece of ground in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe, and all that must be paid for. A great debate is raging between the two major parties in Northern Ireland—he SDLP and the Ulster Unionists—on the number of Ministries or portfolios there should be. The agreement and the Bill provide for a maximum of 10 Ministries, with the addition of a central Ministry that will be supervised by the First Minister designate and the second Minister designate—that means that there will be 11 Ministries. The central Ministry will almost certainly look after finance and personnel, but it will have a general roving commission over the other 10 Ministries. The criterion for the number of Ministries will be not whether 10 Ministries are required for the functional efficiency of the Administration, but the maximum number that can be obtained politically to spread government across the widest field, so that everyone is brought in, including the representatives of organised and practising terror. Sinn Fein will be in charge of two of the 10 Ministries—it is likely to choose equality and education and cultural activity. That must all be paid for. As the Minister said in his illuminating address to the Assembly a week last Monday—he was talking about budgetary proposals and the block grant for Northern Ireland—the total cost of the 10 Ministries, with the raft of bureaucrats, civil servants, officials and other personages who are needed to service them, will come from the block grant. The piglets in government will have not only their snouts but their trotters in the trough. It is now suggested that the trough should be extended—even tinier piglets should be brought in to enjoy the Government's largesse. Is that necessary? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the duties and functions of Ministers who are seconded to the Northern Ireland Office. The six or seven existing Departments seem to function well, but there will be, in addition to the 12 Ministers, an undetermined number of gofers. They will be allotted across the board from the central portfolio held by the two senior Ministers. Why? We know that, when there is a vote and the Whip is applied, all those who benefit from the fruits of office are on the payroll. The extended payroll will be in the gift of the First and second Ministers: effectively in the gift of the Ulster Unionist and Social Democratic and Labour parties, the parties of the centre that will run the show. Those parties will effectively exercise executive government and downgrade the legislative function of the Assembly. No mind, however fertile, ever thought for a moment of including junior Ministers in the agreement, because no one ever conceived that there would be any necessity for them. The 10 Ministers, plus the two chiefs, will have an enormous body of assistants. The place is coming down with special advisers. If only the public could see the facilities and the assistants that are being provided for Ministers in Northern Ireland, they would realise immediately that there is no reason whatever to have any junior Ministers, and especially ones who will be totally in the thrall of the First and second Ministers designate. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East pointed, d'Hondt was written in stone in the part of the agreement relating to the electoral mandate, but now an issue to which d'Hondt does not apply and that was not predicated in the agreement has been put entirely in the gift of the First and second Ministers, when no solid case has been established for the need for the junior Ministers, who will absorb money that Northern Ireland, the Assembly and the Executive could well devote to much worthier causes than providing a source of patronage. Some of us in Northern Ireland still have a conscience about public expenditure and believe that the measure would amount to no more than the placing of the means of bribery in the hands of the First and second Ministers.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The case has been fairly put about the over-governance that will take place in Northern Ireland. Six Departments will become 10, and the central Department will be added. Select Committees with a paid Chairman and Vice-Chairmen, elected on the d'Hondt principle, will oversee every Department. There will have to be 11 Committees, because of the new central Department. Yes, we were under-governed—there was a deficit but it seems to me that we have now gone to the extent of having too many personnel. Because of that, I cannot understand why the Government want to raise the matter of Ministers, of which matter I take a dim view. My party had a meeting with the First Minister and his deputy. We did not understand why they were so dedicated to the idea of having junior Ministers, but I have concluded that it is because they need people on the payroll, whom they can keep in line during tight votes in the Assembly. Remember that the voting is all cross-community. Unless the total number of people voting represent the majority in each community, there is no majority. In electoral terms, what is needed to make a majority is Unionists who are in the majority in their community, and nationalists who are in the majority in theirs, voting together. There are people labelled "others" who have no part in our lot. They can make only one change, becoming Unionists or nationalists, but it is hardly likely that the Alliance party will become a Unionist party, or that the Women's Coalition will become either Unionists or nationalists. The Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Select Committees will be important. The Committees will have great power: they will be able to summons Ministers, persons and papers to answer. It will be some Government when all that gets going. The proposal in the amendment should never have been put to us—any suggestion that we should be doubling up is wrong. Perhaps the Ministers here tonight would like to propose to the Prime Minister that he gives all of them deputies to help alleviate the overloading. After all, there are six Departments, so why should those running them now not have assistants?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

What an interesting debate. It centred on three separate issues, and I shall deal first with the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who spoke specifically about the role of Fisheries Ministers in the new Northern Ireland Administration. I should say first that junior Ministers can have no statutory functions, but they can assist other Ministers. Therefore, on fisheries, a Northern Ireland Minister would have power over the Northern Ireland zone and, beyond the zone, over Northern Ireland-licensed boats—in other words, exactly the same position as in Scotland. The Minister concerned would be involved in European Union discussions, subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom; and, as my hon. Friend said, the issue would be covered in a concordat. My hon. Friend also mentioned the British-Irish Council. It seems to me that the matters relating to the sea, such as pollution, the environment and fishing, would be obvious subjects for discussion in the British-Irish Council. However, matters connected with the European Union will inevitably be matters for the member states and the appropriate Ministers in that capacity. The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised the nature of the appointment of junior Ministers. It is our belief—one with which the House of Lords concurred—that, because the agreement was silent on that point, the Assembly should determine that question. In other words, the amendments are enabling amendments. If the Assembly wishes, it can use the d'Hondt principle or any other method it wants—it is for the Assembly to decide by a majority. The hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) all raised the question whether junior Ministers should exist at all. The hon. and learned Member for North Down spoke at some length on the lack of a need for junior Ministers. However, a small number of junior Ministers will not greatly add to the burden of government in the way that the hon. Members suggested. They drew attention to the fact that Northern Ireland would have junior Ministers on top of councils, an Assembly with 108 members and Ministers, and they suggested that that would be a great panoply of government. However, if we consider the situation in Wales after devolution, we see that the Welsh will have community councils, powerful unitary authorities and many public appointed bodies. Wales will also be a member of the British-Irish Council, like Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Welsh Ministers will take part in Europe alongside United Kingdom Ministers, and we must not forget the European Members of Parliament. Other parts of the UK will have similar structures.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will the Minister say how many Members will sit in the Welsh Assembly and what the population of Wales is, compared with that of Northern Ireland?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The Assembly will have 60 Members and the population is 3 million, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. He also knows that people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales voted for the proposals. People in Northern Ireland voted in the referendum for 108 Members of the Assembly. He knows full well also that the Assembly will have so many Members because it has to be acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland, and that is achieved through a system of the single transferable vote. We must compare costs, and the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how much the proposals will cost. I can tell him that security in Northern Ireland has cost £1 billion a year. If the price of peace and political stability is 108 Members and the existence of junior Ministers, it is a price worth paying.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is are paying the IRA's price.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

That is another issue. We are talking now about Members and junior Ministers. The talks process did not address the issue in detail. If it had, matters would be much easier for us, because the House would be able to implement what had been agreed. That is why we say that it should be for the Assembly to determine the role and number of junior Ministers.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The amendments parallel amendments already made to the clauses on Northern Ireland Ministers. They include adjusting the d'Hondt formula in the way already done for Ministers, to provide that the formula should be run on the basis of the party's strength at the first meeting of the Assembly, thus fully reflecting its electoral mandate. Other changes are more technical, including tidying up the provisions on how Committee Chairmen are to be replaced, and giving parties' nominating officers the power to dismiss their appointees. Perhaps amendment No. 67 is the most significant. It sets out on the face of the Bill the requirement for Standing Orders to ensure that Committees have the powers set out in paragraph 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. The Bill always gave Committees of the Assembly a key role, but amendment No. 67 addresses the concerns expressed by some parties during the consultation exercise. There is also one entirely drafting amendment to the provisions on the Executive Committee of the Assembly. That is amendment No. 377, which is transitional and provides that any Committees established, and Chairmen appointed, during the shadow phase will carry forward after devolution.

NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

These amendments deal with the location of prerogative and statutory power after devolution. Amendment No. 47 reflects the interest shown by some parties during the consultation process in creating a Department of the centre, to which several hon. Members have referred, under the joint control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Such a Department has obvious parallels in Whitehall. A similar Department was in existence during previous devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland. Its functions would be entirely for the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly to determine, but could include both policy co-ordination and statutory functions. There is no explicit provision for such a Department in the Belfast agreement. Therefore, we have provided for such a Department to be created by an Act of the Assembly. However, if the parties agree on its creation during the shadow phase, the transitional provisions of the Bill will enable it to continue in existence after devolution. The new clause also ensures that, if such a Department is created, it will not count towards the Bill's maximum of 10 ministerial offices, nor will it count towards d'Hondt. Amendment No. 48 deals with statutory functions after devolution. During earlier consideration of the Bill in this House, there was some confusion about the scope of clause 18 on the prerogative and other Executive power. The clause gave the impression that the majority of Executive authority in Northern Ireland would be exercised by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly. In fact, of course, the prerogative is only a small part of all Executive power. Accordingly, the new clause deals with the most significant element of Executive authority—statutory power. Statutory functions in Northern Ireland are generally vested in the Departments, under the control and direction of their Ministers. The new clause makes it clear that that will continue to be the case. Amendment No. 49 recasts clause 18, which deals with prerogative and other Executive powers. Despite the sometimes grand language of the clause, it deals with far less significant functions than those covered by the new clause that precedes it. As the amendment makes clear, the most significant prerogative power exercisable under the clause is the management of the Northern Ireland civil service. Prerogative and other Executive powers also include a series of more minor powers that the Government can exercise in the same way as a normal citizen, such as the power to enter into contracts. Other than clarifying, in subsection (3), the position with respect to the Northern Ireland civil service, the main significance of the amendment is the ability it gives to Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise prerogative powers directly without being authorised explicitly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is important for administrative reasons, since even relatively mundane departmental tasks, such as publishing leaflets, depend to a degree on using prerogative powers, and it would clearly be absurdly cumbersome to require explicit approval for those tasks. Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 are transitional. They provide that any Department established during the shadow phase under the joint control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may carry on after devolution. Amendment No. 378 similarly ensures that prerogative orders made under the 1973 Letters Patent can remain in force after devolution.

COMMUNITY LAW, CONVENTION RIGHTS ETC.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendments make drafting and technical improvements to clause 19, which prevents Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments from doing things—including making legislation—which are incompatible with rights under the European convention on human rights or European Union law, or which involve discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion. They enable us to set out clearly the possible conduct that we intend to prevent, and to bring certain additional matters within the scope of the clause so as to bring it into line with other provisions of the Bill.

New clause

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Amendment No. 62 permits the making of an order determining the Northern Ireland share of a quota imposed on the United Kingdom by virtue of an international or European Community obligation. The same provision applies in the case of Wales and in amendments to the Scotland Bill. That is necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom as a whole meets its international obligations. Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 allow arrangements to be made for Northern Ireland Departments to carry out functions on behalf of other devolved UK Administrations, including the Government, or vice versa. Agency arrangements were provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the inclusion of public bodies and holders of public office in the provisions enables authorities outside central Government Departments in devolved Administrations to act on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, should the need arise. The amendments achieve parity among all three devolved systems and I commend them to the House.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your observations and instructions to Opposition Members, who clearly have no interest in this Northern Ireland legislation. They have entered the Chamber to rejoice about another matter, which they claim is about democracy. This legislation extends democracy to Northern Ireland, but Opposition Members are not prepared to listen to the debate. Before the points of order, I pointed out that the option of Westminster legislation always remains if the devolved institutions are seen not to be working. However, we clearly do not want to work on that assumption from the start of the new Assembly. Amendment No. 85 therefore restructures the Bill's provisions on extraordinary elections, bringing them more into line with the provisions in the Scotland Bill. Accordingly, the new clause leaves the power to call early elections with the Assembly, on a majority of two thirds of all Members—not just those who vote. In addition, a fresh election will be triggered if the Assembly fails to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks. Amendment No. 104 deletes altogether the Secretary of State's power to prorogue the Assembly. The other amendment in the group, No. 86, is consequential on the new provisions regarding extraordinary elections. I commend the amendments to the House.

VACANCIES

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

This is a rather large group of amendments covering with a series of related and technical issues, but dealing broadly with the powers, privileges and proceedings of the Assembly. Amendments Nos. 93 and 96 concerning the Assembly's power to call witnesses and papers are relatively minor and technical. The most important is amendment No. 97. It enables the Presiding Officer to apply an oath to a witness, meaning that those giving untruthful answers will be guilty of perjury. Amendment No. 87 makes it clear that the Assembly's proceedings will not be invalidated by any vacancies in its membership. Several other amendments concern the Assembly's privileges. In line with the Scotland and Wales legislation, amendments Nos. 102 and 103 provide that those reporting the Assembly's proceedings will not be liable to conviction for contempt of court under the strict liability rule only if the reports are also "accurate" and "in good faith". Amendment No. 88 deals with the issue of disqualification, providing for cases of bankruptcy and mental illness along similar lines to the Scotland Bill. Amendments Nos. 91 and 276 concern the Assembly's Standing Orders. They make it clear that the Standing Orders require cross-community support to be amended or repealed as well as made, and delete from schedule 6 redundant references to the Royal Assent. Amendment No. 92 alters the Bill's provisions on petitions of concern. As the Bill stands, a petition of concern leads automatically to a vote on the issue, which then requires cross-community support in order to succeed. During consultation with the parties, it was made clear to us that they felt that paragraph 13 of strand 1 to the Good Friday agreement should enable petitions of concern to be dealt with by the Special Committee procedure set out in paragraph 11 of strand 1. The agreement provides for the paragraph 11 Committee to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with equality requirements, including the European convention on human rights and the Bill of Rights. This amendment requires the Assembly, through its Standing Orders, to set out procedures by which petitions of concern may be referred to such a Committee for scrutiny, and thus brings the Bill closer to the provisions of the agreement. Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 are technical and concern remuneration of Assembly Members. Amendment No. 98 provides for higher salaries to be paid to holders of junior ministerial office. Amendment No. 99 provides for higher salaries to be paid to Members of the Assembly Commission. Amendment No. 100 sets out rules for continued payment of Members' salaries after dissolution. Amendment No. 101 is consequential on amendment No. 98. I commend the amendments to the House.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

My understanding of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes is the same.

COMMISSION

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

This is a group of minor and technical amendments to the provisions for an Assembly Commission. The principal function of the Commission is to provide the Assembly—or to ensure that the Assembly is provided with—the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes. The amendments enable the Commission to charge for goods and services, and make a number of other minor and technical changes to the provisions on bringing proceedings by, or against, the Commission; on the Commission's status as a Crown body; and on its functions. I commend the amendments to the House.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister may draw my attention to an amendment in the group entitled "Miscellaneous and supplemental", but the Assembly Commission met the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, in relation to the exercise of control in the Stormont estate. I think that we have reached a mutually satisfactory arrangement, but it would be helpful if it was given to us from the Dispatch Box so that it is clear that the Commission will be in control—not only of Parliament buildings, but of the apron of land that goes down in front of Parliament buildings—so that no demonstrations can take place without the Assembly's permission.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Assembly Commission—other hon. Members may not know that—and has been involved in the debate about the Stormont estate. Discussions have been proceeding, and agreements that have been reached within those discussions will, of course, be honoured. I can give him that assurance from the Dispatch Box.

New clause

NORTH-SOUTH MINISTERIAL COUNCIL AND BRITISH-IRISH COUNCIL

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The amendments relate to strands 2 and 3 of the agreement, and respond to points made when the Bill was being considered in the House and to consultations with the Northern Ireland parties. Together, the amendments introduce new clauses to replace clauses 65 to 67 in the Bill as it left this House. Amendment No. 105 deals with the participation of Ministers and junior Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council. It incorporates a number of important points that I know have exercised the minds of many Northern Ireland Members. It requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure that participation in each of the councils is that which is required by the Belfast agreement, including, specifically, that participation be on a cross-community basis, as set out in paragraph 30 of strand 1. That is an important safeguard in ensuring that the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account when business is conducted in the councils. Throughout consideration of the clauses, an important dimension has been the authority and accountability of Ministers participating in the North-South Ministerial Council. Before we went into recess, I told the House, and I repeat, that as a Minister I understand the importance of accountability—of the authority of decision making resting ultimately with the House of Commons and, in Northern Ireland's case, with the Assembly. Therefore, we have responded to a number of concerns that were expressed by hon. Members and by parties. 10.15 pm The new clause makes it clear that Ministers and junior Ministers must act in accordance with relevant decisions of the Assembly and Executive Committee. It also requires openness and transparency in the operation of the council—an important aspect of accountability. The Assembly will be given advance notice of the date, agenda and nominations for each meeting, and Ministers will be required by law to report back afterwards. Furthermore, the new clause makes it clear that Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council must act in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2 of the agreement. Paragraph 5 sets out the various levels at which Ministers will participate in the council, and paragraph 6 outlines the authority for such participation. It states that each side is to be in a position to take decisions within the defined authority of those attending, and that each side remains accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively, whose approval would be required for decisions going beyond Ministers' defined authority. The clause puts it beyond any doubt that Ministers have authority to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council only to the extent that such participation is in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. Amendment No. 106 ensures that the Assembly has power to legislate in respect of agreements or arrangements made in the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council. Under that part of the Bill, Ministers will be able not only to consult the Irish Government but, in relation to devolved matters, to conclude agreements and arrangements within the framework of the councils. The clauses do not confer the power to conclude treaties, or other agreements binding in international law. Where it is necessary for matters to be provided for in a treaty, that would be concluded by the British Government. Amendment No. 106 also contains provision in relation to the accountability of the North-South Ministerial Council by making it clear that no agreement to establish a new implementation body shall come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly, in line with paragraph 12 of strand 2. Amendment No. 107 deals with the British-Irish intergovernmental conference and requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure such cross-community attendance by Ministers and junior Ministers as is required by the agreement at meetings where excepted or reserved Northern Ireland matters are to be discussed. It was a cause of some frustration that there was no involvement of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland when the British and Irish Governments previously came together in the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. That is now being remedied in the new British-Irish intergovernmental conference. Amendment No. 108 provides for the Secretary of State to make orders in respect of the initial north-south implementation bodies. The clause, as amended, applies only to the initial, agreed implementation bodies. Those bodies are to be agreed by representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government, and established formally by international treaties concluded between the British and Irish Governments. They will then need to be given any requisite capacities and functions in domestic legislation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is the purpose of the Secretary of State's power to make orders under the clause. If further implementation bodies are agreed, it will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the necessary legislation. I believe that the new institutions have the potential to develop positive relationships and practical co-operation in the island of Ireland, and in these islands, in a way that will deliver real benefits to all the people. I commend them to the House.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

As the Minister will know, one of the great fears of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland relates to the subject matter of these provisions, especially given that the Government of the Republic of Ireland hold, in their present constitution, that it is a constitutional imperative to act under paragraphs 2 and 3 of that constitution to create a united Ireland to include the territory of Northern Ireland. The Minister will also know that it has been the policy of successive British Governments to stand by the declaration of disinterest made in the joint declaration of 15 December 1993, in which the then British Government declared that they had no strategic, economic or selfish reason for remaining in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that the majority—pro-Union—community in Northern Ireland fear that the arrangements are intended to effect, in accordance with the policies that I have mentioned, a factually and functionally united Ireland, and that the implementation bodies currently being put in place are but the forerunners, or the thin edge of the wedge, intended to ease Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom as part of a transitional phase, recognised as such by one of the main participants in the agreement. I refer to Sinn Fein-IRA, which has repeatedly said that it views the agreement and the Bill as nothing more than a phase for the purpose of ensuring a transition to the ultimate objective of a united Irish socialist republic. I do not have a copy of the Belfast agreement with me, but the Minister mentioned that under the terms of paragraph 6 each Minister would have power to make decisions within the limits of his authority. Under paragraph 6, would a Sinn Fein Minister appointed under the d'Hondt system with responsibility for, say, education, and acting according to a broad Government programme for the year, be entitled to enter into arrangements with his counterpart from the Dail and bind the Assembly, if he had made a decision within the limits of his authority? Or is the Minister saying that the provisions will ensure that, ultimately, the Assembly will have to give authority and approval to any decision made by the relevant Minister? I am particularly concerned about subsection (3) of the new clause that would be inserted if Lords amendment No. 105 were agreed to. It states: Without prejudice to the operation of section 19, such a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned. As the Minister will know, there is quite a distinction between a decision of the Assembly and a decision of the Executive Committee, but the proposed new clause suggests that either may give authority. It is extremely important that the people of Northern Ireland should know whether the Assembly or the Executive will give ultimate approval, and if it is the latter, exactly what constitutes that "Executive"? Is it a Minister acting within the limits of his authority as part of the Executive? Is it a combined number of Ministers—the entire Executive, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister? What exactly is meant by "the Executive" in those circumstances?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

This group of amendments constitutes not so much a group of amendments as a completely new Bill. The Minister is proposing to leave out the original clause 43 and to insert substantial new clauses, thereby demonstrating that the Bill is being entirely re-written. He could therefore assist the House by providing more details on this group of amendments than he has provided on previous groups. Specifically, the wording of the amendments make it clear that the participants in both the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will be cross-community participants. I expect that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is to ensure that we do not have a Sinn Fein Minister going down on his or her own and taking decisions on his or her own. However, I have not read anything in the Bill saying that Northern Ireland Ministers must be unanimous in decisions on whether to agree provisions formulated with their counterparts in the Irish Republic. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister—to take the example given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—might take along with them an Education Minister who might well be from Sinn Fein, so that two nationalists and one Unionist would be attending. Will a majority be sufficient to make a decision—or is that matter yet to be played for, in the Assembly's standing orders or in other provisions regulating Ministers' behaviour at those meetings? It is important—it is essential—that the matter be clarified.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I was dealing not with implementation bodies but with the North-South Ministerial Council. They are quite separate structures. I hope that I shall be able shortly to deal with implementation bodies. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Down mentioned his concerns about subsection (3) of Lords amendment No. 105, which can be read in many different ways. I can see nowhere within the provision a requirement that the Assembly's agreement be given beforehand or its approval be given afterwards. The provision certainly allows for such approval to be given, and certainly requires Ministers to act if agreements have been reached. However, nowhere does it say that a Minister cannot act in reaching agreements in the north-south body unless the Assembly has reached a decision on such agreements. Neither does it say that a Minister must come back and seek the Assembly's approval. If there is to be accountability to the Assembly, there must be such requirements. Will the Minister explain his views on where accountability lies in the new clause? I am mindful of the fact that, in the Ulster Unionist party manifesto, the party leader expressly stated that he and his party would secure two specific elements in an agreement on north-south councils. One was that north-south bodies would be accountable. The second was that they would be consultative, not executive. If they have implementation roles, they are executive, not merely consultative. To that extent, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has broken his election commitment. I want to find out whether the other election commitment on accountability has also been broken. The issue is not that accountability should be allowed under certain circumstances, but that there should be accountability under all circumstances in the Assembly.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I should like the Minister to look again at the new clause in amendment No. 105, which says: Without prejudice to the operation of section 19, such a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has rightly pointed out that there is a difference between a decision made in the Assembly and a decision made in the Executive Committee. Not all Members of the Assembly would necessarily know of a decision made in the Executive Committee. Will a Minister have the power to act unilaterally with his colleague in the Dublin Government on a matter that has been agreed with the Northern Ireland Executive Committee rather than with the Assembly? The new clause also says: A Minister or junior Minister who participates in a meeting of either Council by reason of a nomination under this section shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, make a report". There is a great difference between making a report and asking the Assembly to approve what has been done. The new clause also says that the report will be made orally—not even in writing. There is no requirement for it to be agreed by the Assembly. There is a great difference between reporting something that has taken place and that matter taking place solely under the authority that the Assembly has ratified. That causes us grave concern. I should like the Minister to tell us what he understands about those two issues.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I shall be very brief. I am conscious of the fact that the time for the debate is limited, and we are dealing with very complicated matters. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) will remember that, on one occasion earlier in the proceedings, he quoted me, did not give way to me, said that he would give way later in his speech, forgot and then kindly came up to apologise to me. I am claiming the injury time that derives from that moment. On this occasion, I am wholly on the side of the hon. and learned Member for North Down and the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I recognise the sensitivity of the issues that we are discussing. I noticed the Minister wince and look at the clock when he was asked for a fuller explanation. The time that we have to debate the amendments is wholly the fault of the Government. Unlike the three previous speakers, who oppose the agreement, I support it. I should be greatly in the Minister's debt if he gave a fuller account than has been given so far.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Any wincing or looking at clocks was entirely due to tiredness on my part, rather than any discourtesy intended to any hon. Members. Some interesting points were made in Committee, on Report and during consultation. The issue is of considerable importance, particularly to the Unionist community. I shall do my best to address the concerns. The part of the Bill that deals with such matters is now much bigger than it was before the summer; that is a direct consequence of consultation. I believe that the various points that I mentioned earlier go a long way towards addressing hon. Members' concerns. Let me briefly reiterate some of those in general terms. Northern Ireland participation must be on a cross-community basis. That is vital, and it is written into strand 2 of the agreement. It means that, in any participation, a Unionist and a nationalist must take part, and there must be agreement between them before any decisions are reached. Let us look at what we mean by decisions. Members asked about the role of the Executive Committee vis-a-vis the Assembly. We put into the Bill a specific reference to the various paragraphs of the agreement, such as paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. Paragraph 6 is especially significant, because it refers to "defined authority" and the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction". Clearly that is a reference to the Executive Committee. Hon. Members will know that decisions that require any money, for example, must go back to the Assembly, because it is the Assembly that votes the money. Decisions that require any legislative action must also go back to the Assembly, because it is the Assembly that passes the laws and must therefore decide. Hon. Members will also know that any new implementation body—that is a possibility, of course—has to be approved by the Assembly. Is it not also true that any Minister worth his or her salt knows that, if he or she cannot carry the Assembly—on a cross-community basis, Unionists and nationalists—ultimately there will be no support for the proposal? The north-south bodies and the implementation bodies that go with them—

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is the Minister saying that the extent of accountability depends on the grace and favour of a Minister and whether he or she is, in the Minister's words, "worth his or her salt"? If the requirement is not legislative and if there is already money in the Minister's budget, there is no requirement for the Minister to go back and obtain the approval of the Assembly.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

There are other ways in which the Assembly itself can determine the methods by which Ministers will report back to it. For example, it is open to the Assembly, through its Standing Orders Committee, to authorise Ministers to report to the Executive Committee and the Assembly in writing. That is the purpose of Standing Orders. We do not put everything in the Bill—

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

No, I shall not, for a moment. I shall finish my point first; then, by all means, the hon. Gentleman may intervene again. Of course the Assembly, as it develops its own way of working, will ensure that those things happen and that there is accountability. I also think—

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

rose—

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend has already asked to intervene. Who wants to speak first? I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister well knows the issue at stake. If a Minister has to be accountable to the Assembly, the Minister will have to bring his or her proposal there and gain cross-community support for it. That requires any proposal to be one that will enjoy the support of both Unionists and nationalists. If, on the other hand, it is up to the Assembly to pull the Minister into line, a Unionist, for instance, would have to get nationalist support to stop a nationalist Minister doing something pro-nationalist.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

There is a limit to how far we can build into legislation the way in which Ministers will operate. However, the new arrangements that we have made refer specifically to the agreement, which, after all, was voted on by the people in Northern Ireland. We also have a reference to the fact that laws cannot be passed or money spent without approval, and ultimately the Assembly, through its Standing Orders arrangements, can work out how best to set up the report-back procedures. The notice to be given to the Assembly is there, too. It is clear that people must act in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly. That is there in black and white in the Bill. We were talking about outer space earlier, and anyone who came down from outer space to look at the provisions in the Bill and asked, "Does that mean that Ministers can go out and do what they like, willy-nilly?" would realise that the answer was no, of course it does not. Ministers are properly accountable to the Assembly, but they must also take into account the cross-community aspect in terms of the North-South Ministerial Council and the Assembly.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Perhaps I could adjudicate on who the Minister is giving way to. I call the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister has made a point about the Standing Orders. If the Minister, under such circumstances, makes an arrangement, must he get the approval of the Assembly? Will that be in the Standing Orders?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The Assembly itself will decide its own Standing Orders after devolution. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) are all Members of the Assembly. They will have an important role to play when the Standing Orders are approved by the full Assembly—or, indeed, when the Committee dealing with Standing Orders devises ways in which such matters can be expressed in detail. We have made various changes to the Bill to ensure that the Minister acts in accordance with the Assembly or the Executive Committee, and acts in accordance in respect of finance and law making. In addition, the fact that a Unionist and nationalist Minister must attend such councils will provide plenty of opportunity to ensure that there is compromise and understanding between both sides, and accountability.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will the Minister crystallise the issue? Let us say that a Minister from the Northern Ireland Assembly goes down and meets his opposite number from the Dail—in whatever circumstances—and takes a decision that, under paragraph 6 of the Belfast agreement, he is entitled to do within the limit of his authority or remit. Having taken that decision and returned to Northern Ireland, is the Minister required to obtain the ratification of the Assembly for that decision, or does he merely have to report it and leave it to one or other of the two community parties to seek cross-community objection or support for it? Will the Assembly have the last word on a decision taken by a Minister within the limit of his authority, as prescribed by paragraph 6 of the Belfast agreement?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Everything is in accordance with the Belfast agreement, and that is why paragraph 6 was so carefully worded. It states: Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable". First, he or she is not necessarily going down—they could be coming up in the North-South Ministerial Council. [Interruption.] That is a significant point. All this business about "going down" ignores the fact that this will be a proper North-South Ministerial Council, reflecting interest north and south of the border—and, I hope, of benefit to people north and south of the border. Similarly, meetings—wherever they are held—will be held on a cross-community basis. We are not talking about a single person. We are talking about people going together. It is clear to me—as, I am sure, it is to hon. Members—that, if people are going together, things will not be decided in contradistinction to one side or other of the Assembly. In addition, major—and not so major—decisions will require the finance that must be voted on by the Assembly. It could mean that the Assembly would have to vote on a law, or the decisions could be relatively minor and a law would not be necessary, but decisions could nevertheless be made within that defined authority. Ultimately, Ministers will have to report their actions to the Assembly and, if any Member decides to question that report within the rules that the Standing Orders of the Assembly lay down, it can debate the issues, as we can in the House.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On that point, will the Minister confirm that paragraph (1) of amendment No. 106 states: This section applies to any agreement or arrangement entered into by a Minister or junior Minister participating, by reason of a nomination under section (North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council)"? Paragraph (4) of the amendment clearly states: No agreement or arrangement to which this section applies entered into for the establishment after the appointed day of an implementation body shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly. Is that not a self-evident requirement for the Assembly to approve any such actions?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

That certainly reinforces my arguments—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether we will ever persuade Ulster Democratic Unionist party Members that accountability is theirs. They have got it into their heads that it is not, and they will not be persuaded. We are doing all that we can to ensure that such accountability is provided for in the Bill, as far as it is congruent with the agreement. In addition, the Assembly has the matter in its own hands. By virtue of its Standing Orders and debates, it can ensure that such accountability is present. I see no problems with it. The hon. and learned Member for North Down said that the provision will lead to a united Ireland and that it is all a slippery slope. Undoubtedly, a number of people in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland fear that. I think that they are misguided, because the whole basis of the agreement, for which people voted by a large majority, is consent. It is the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, within Northern Ireland, that will determine whether there is any such movement, not the provision under discussion. It will be decided not by the implementation bodies, or the North-South Ministerial Council, but by a vote of the people in Northern Ireland to decide what they want to do. That is the very bedrock of the agreement and that is why people in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or nationalist, need not fear anything from the agreement or the Bill.

New clause

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Amendment No. 157 would delete the provisions on the civic forum from their current position in the Bill and amendment No. 109 amends them, moving them to a more prominent position. The main differences with the new provisions are that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will now have a clear duty to establish the forum. The financial provisions have been tidied up and references to the forum representing the views of the community have been removed. Amendment No. 380 is technical and would provide for any establishment of the civic forum during the shadow phase to carry forward after devolution.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I promise that I will be brief. I made an exceedingly brief speech earlier—I think that it lasted 60 seconds. I have spoken to representatives of voluntary organisations and trade unions, who believe that amendment No. 109 is a first-class initiative. I make the plea—I know that I do not have the support of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—that the forum be given adequate resources. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned financial provisions, but I believe that anything less than £500,000 could mean that the forum was nothing more than a talking shop.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) would be unwise to think that only those who oppose the agreement have expressed doubts about the civic forum. Throughout Northern Ireland—I speak also for those beyond the Unionist community—there are grave reservations about it. It is thought that the forum may exercise the prerogative of the harlot—power without responsibility—and constitute itself as an upper chamber. Given recent events, the powers of upper chambers may have some reverberations in this Chamber this evening, but the good government of Northern Ireland will not be served by the establishment of a civic forum that comprises a group of self-confessed lobbyists who have nothing to do other than to do dream up schemes—many of them far removed from reality-with which to carry out a process of self-publicity for various purposes. There is room for a body that would draw up reports or take advice from a wide spectrum of society—even from members of the self-appointed G7, which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, some elements of the trade unions and one or two others. The Assembly could usefully consult such a body. However, it would be totally inimical to the future good government of Northern Ireland if members of the forum were led to believe that they were constituted as an upper chamber, that they inhabited the environs of Stormont, that they were the touchy-feely conscience of the Assembly or that they were a moral mirror for the elected Members. At some point, people have to govern. In a democracy, the people who govern are those who were elected; they are not some collection of polyglot do-gooders. I fear that, unless the civic forum is given a specific remit and unless the parameters of its activities are defined, it will turn itself into not an aid to the Assembly but a body that will generate irritation without forwarding the good government of the people of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is important that we should know why the Bill contains provisions for a civic forum. During the negotiations, the participants were happily working and weaving the various levels of government into the proposed arrangements. They set up the Assembly, the ministerial structures and the committees. After that, some parties froze—they went rigid. They went rigid because they—principally the Women's Coalition and the Ulster Democratic party—realised that there was a possibility that they might not have their day in the sun, so they devised this little initiative: a mechanism whereby political rejects could get in on the act. To quote the Minister, any politician worth his or her salt should be in touch with all the interest groups in the day-to-day discharge of his or her duties. It is politicians' job to know what their constituency feels about the economy, culture or any other issue affecting the day-to-day life of the Assembly. The purpose of the civic forum was simply to provide jobs for the boys and, in this case, especially the girls. The forum is no more than a talking shop: it has no executive function, and no function at all beyond giving an extremely limited range of people the chance to whisper in Assembly Members' ears their views on a limited range of issues. There is a clause that allows the forum to be expanded if the Assembly so wishes, but it is clear who the Government want to be in the forum. The groups that the Minister has outlined would certainly not be representative of the community as a whole. It would be vital for a body specifically charged with expressing views on a range of issues to be representative, but, unless there is a significant change, that will not be the case. Wherever the forum meets, it should not do so in parliamentary buildings. It is vital that it should never be perceived as a second chamber of the Assembly. That was never intended to be its role, but, if it were to be housed in the Parliament buildings—in the Senate Chamber, for instance—there is absolutely no doubt how it would see itself and how others would see it. It must be kept as a body to be consulted on issues about which the Assembly specifically asks it for its views, and it should not generate its own agenda.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We discussed this at some length at earlier stages of the Bill. When the Minister met us, he was in no doubt about the position that those associated with me in the Assembly took. I know that others spoke to him who differ with me about the agreement but share my views on the civic forum. They agree that it should not be a colossal quango, priding itself on being the House of Lords in the new Assembly, keeping everybody right. One of the leading proponents of the forum says that adequate money must be set aside to allow it to journey from place to place and meet in venues throughout the country. The forum will not be an elected body, because those who want to be on it are unelectable. They have tried and failed: some of them have changed parties and flown various flags of convenience, but they have still been rejected. To my amazement, I read in the newspaper the other day that a candidate who was defeated in the Assembly elections demanded that a place be made for him because his contribution was so valuable that Northern Ireland could not succeed without him. The people did not think so—he put himself up to be elected, and the people defeated him. We are also told that the chairman of the new civic form is to be a person of great power, equal to the Speaker of the Assembly. The time has come when the people should be told about the forum, whose membership is to be nominated by the First Minister and his deputy. I am glad that the Bill has retained the provision that the membership also has to be approved by the Assembly, because it means that the nominees will have to get the Assembly's vote. In addition, I believe that the Assembly will have some power, through the proposed commission to look after the property of Stormont, to prevent the forum from meeting in the Parliament buildings. I understand that the forum has said that the old forum building must be put at its disposal, but it might not be big enough for its members' offices. We should be perfectly clear: if the people want the forum and if the Government want it, as they evidently do, its lines of operation should be clearly marked. It should not be allowed to damage the Assembly, or hinder the Assembly in the work that it was elected to do.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The agreement referred to a consultative civic forum, and that is what it is. It is not an elected body, nor is it a rival to the Assembly, nor a second chamber. It is a civic forum, comprising, I should hope, people of a wide range of views, backgrounds and experiences in Northern Ireland. Some of those sectors—trade unionism, business and the voluntary sector—have been mentioned in the agreement, but other sectors may be included, as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and approved by the Assembly. I believe that nothing but good can come of the forum. It is similar to the Economic and Social Council of the European Union. We have had inquiries from other parts of the country, including Wales, about how the forum might operate, but that is a matter for the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Members of the Assembly to determine. I am quite convinced that they will come up with the best ideas about how to form the body and what it should do. It will enhance, not replace, democracy in Northern Ireland.

CONSOLIDATED FUND OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The amendments relate to the financial provisions contained in the Bill, and several reflect the undertaking I gave the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to consider his proposals for expanding and improving the audit controls. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful proposals, the bulk of which are now reflected in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 110 to 117 are chiefly technical and drafting amendments, which clarify how the default provision will work. We introduced the provision to safeguard public services in the event of the Assembly's being unable to agree a budget or pass appropriation measures. Amendment No. 110 makes it clear that the default mechanism will begin to operate if the Assembly cannot agree on expenditure for the forthcoming financial year by three working days before the end of the current financial year. Amendments Nos. 114 and 116 clarify the upper limits on expenditure once the default mechanism has come into play: 75 per cent. of the previous year's total for expenditure on account, and 95 per cent. of the previous year's expenditure for a whole year in default of an appropriation measure. The principal changes to the audit arrangements are in amendment No. 118, which sets out the basic audit provisions that all future Northern Ireland legislation is required to continue in operation. It is not possible for practical reasons to entrench existing audit legislation: the Assembly must be able to amend it from time to time because, for instance, Treasury requirements may change. In addition, it has been a transferred matter since 1921, and there is no justification for going against the Belfast agreement and reserving it now. Nevertheless, the Assembly will be responsible for large amounts of public money, for which it must be fully and publicly accountable. It should not be free to abolish audit controls or so to dilute them that they become ineffective. I have to say that I have no fear at present that the Assembly will do any such thing, but the Scotland Bill constrains the Scottish Parliament from abolishing its controls, and a similar provision is justified for this Bill. Amendment No. 118 will require future Northern Ireland legislation to provide, among other things, for proper accounts to be prepared in respect of payments in and out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, for accounting officers to be designated in Northern Ireland Departments, and for accounts to be audited, certified, published and laid before the Assembly. It will also require the Assembly to establish the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, with similar duties, and it will establish the independence of anyone other than the Comptroller and Auditor-General who is charged with the audit function, because a proportion of audit work is put out to private firms. Amendment No. 119 will buttress the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself, and will prevent the Assembly from making a recommendation to the Queen for his removal from office, unless there is a vote in favour of so doing supported by two thirds of the total number of Assembly Members entitled to vote. Amendment No. 121 will ensure that the Assembly cannot manipulate him by reducing his salary. Amendment No. 122 will protect the independence of the Northern Ireland Audit Office by the establishment of a special Assembly Committee to examine its expenses, as the Public Accounts Commission does for the National Audit Office here. Taken together, this package will ensure the integrity of the audit controls over public expenditure in Northern Ireland in the years to come. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for drawing to my attention the desirability of replicating the Scotland Bill model as far as possible, and I commend the amendments to the House.

THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The Government received extensive representations on the Floor of the House and during the summer months on the human rights issue, and we received many amendments to the Bill on that subject. We have introduced amendments of our own which meet many of the concerns that have been expressed. A powerful case was made for an extension of the Human Rights Commission's functions and powers beyond what is currently provided for in the Bill. We have not closed our minds on that, and we therefore introduced amendment No. 123 to require the commission, no later than two years after its establishment, to review the adequacy of its powers. Amendments Nos. 124 and 132 go together. Amendment No. 124 makes clear on the face of the Bill the ability of the Human Rights Commission to bring proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights, but amendment No. 132 ensures that this provision does not override the need for a "victim" under the Human Rights Act 1998. In exercising its various functions as laid down in the clause, we would expect that a normal part of the way the commission operates will be to carry out investigations. Amendment No. 125 provides for that. As my colleague Lord Williams of Mostyn explained in the other place, the Government will co-operate fully with any investigation undertaken by the commission. We shall provide it with any information and documents necessary to such an investigation, subject only to adequate arrangements being made to protect information where confidentiality is required, and to safeguard national security, public safety and public order. Amendment No. 126 widens the ambit of clause 55 so that the commission will be able to assist persons in any proceedings which, in the view of the commission, involve either the law or practice relating to protection of human rights. Amendments Nos. 127 to 131 are technical improvements, which ensure that the Bill will allow the commission to assist "persons" rather than individuals, and that will allow the commission to assist incorporated bodies as well as individual people. I have already mentioned amendment No. 132. Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 are technical amendments, which ensure that the Human Rights Commission can bring proceedings in cases involving non-European convention on human rights issues. Amendment No. 136 provides that the Advocate-General for Scotland is exempt from restrictions, as well as the other Law Officers listed. There are four amendments to schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 are technical, and will make it possible for employment by the commission to fall within the terms of a superannuation scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972. Amendments Nos. 279 and 280 are simple drafting amendments that improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of the schedule. There are also some issues relating to the Human Rights Commission on which we did not introduce amendments, but on which we believe that we should take the opportunity to clarify our position. We have been asked about the role of the commission as amicus curiae. Courts will be free to ask the commission to provide assistance as amicus under the normal rules that apply. However, that is not a matter for the Bill, but for the court in individual cases. There has also been considerable debate on the commission's role in scrutinising draft legislation. Under clause 11, all Bills introduced in the Assembly will be sent to the commission as soon as is reasonably practicable after their introduction. That does not prevent the sponsors of legislation from involving the commission earlier, before a first draft of a Bill appears. Certainly the Government would expect to consult the commission at an early stage on any proposal for Westminster legislation that touched on human rights issues in Northern Ireland. We have no reason to doubt that sponsors of Bills in the Assembly will do the same. Before draft legislation is introduced, its referral to the commission is not a matter for the Assembly, and the Bill clearly cannot regulate what the Assembly should do. I hope that that explanation answers most of the outstanding issues.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for much of what he has just said, and for his clarification of several issues. He has put the Government's intentions into Hansard, and the courts will therefore have to pay attention to them. However, I am concerned about several points. First, the amendments will considerably extend the role and purpose of the commission. Will it have sufficient funds to carry out its functions? We have heard figures bandied about of less than £1 million, a sum that would not be sufficient to achieve a proper inquiry in some cases. What will be the financial restraints? Will the money come from the Treasury, or from the Northern Ireland grant, on which there are other pressures? Secondly, I want to be sure that I correctly understood my hon. Friend's final point on Westminster legislation. The Belfast agreement said that the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would have an extended and enhanced role beyond that currently exercised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, to include keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of laws and practices, making recommendations to Government as necessary". My hon. Friend the Minister said that any proposed legislation affecting human rights and concerning Northern Ireland that passed through this House would go to the Human Rights Commission. 11.15 pm I hope that I have understood that correctly, because, if that is the case, it would overcome some of the difficulties that have arisen in the statement of my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. He said of the proposal that Westminster legislation should go to the Human Rights Commission: We do not think that that is necessary because Westminster Bills will be subject to the regime proposed in the Human Rights Bill to ensure that Ministers consider their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 1998; Vol. 594, c. 1536.] Of course, it is possible that legislation emanating from Westminster and affecting Northern Ireland may be within the European convention on human rights, but not within human rights and other legislation as it is concerned with Northern Ireland and its Human Rights Commission. I turn briefly to the amendment that has caused most concern, a matter on which I have the support of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who sadly is now in St. Thomas's hospital. I am sure that all my colleagues send him their good wishes, and hope that he will have a speedy recovery. Had he been here, he would have been vociferous on this amendment because of his concern for human rights in Northern Ireland and the amendment arising from the Tinnelly case, which, as he was quick to point out, had many of the aspects of exclusion orders. The thrust of the amendment in my name to Lords amendment No. 125 seeks to strengthen the role of the Human Rights Commission. It provides that, when initiating an investigation, the commission can subpoena witnesses and demand the production of documents. My hon. Friend the Minister of State failed to deal with that main issue. In correspondence with me, he said that the matter was not dealt with completely in the agreement. In fact, in the section entitled "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", in paragraph 4, the agreement says: The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission … will be invited to consult and advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland"— that is the first point, which my hon. Friend has dealt with— drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. The basic documents on international rights and experience are the Paris principles. My hon. Friend will probably be aware of a letter sent on 18 June by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which he kindly placed in the Library. The High Commissioner, who one would think would have broad knowledge of these matters, says: While this responsibility does not generally require the relevant institutions"— that is, human rights commissions— to make binding decisions (which for constitutional reasons are generally reserved to the courts) it is common practice to accord these Commissions powers to conduct investigations effectively by compelling the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, if necessary. Such powers would, in my view, clearly be appropriate for the new institutions envisaged by the Multi-Party Agreement. My hon. Friend and the parties to the agreement say that they will look for international standards. The minimum international standards are laid down in the Paris principles. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has written to the Prime Minister stating that the powers are minimum requirements, and that she would expect to see them in the agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that we cannot depart from the agreement, as there does not seem to be much agreement on the matter, but all the parties agreed on the minimum international standards, and the United Nations High Commissioner says that these are the minimum international standards. We have been let down. I know that my hon. Friend said that, in two years, the Human Rights Commission can examine the situation, and may recommend those powers. I believe that provision for the powers is contained in the agreement as a minimum international standard. The High Commissioner agrees. My hon. Friend states in correspondence with me that there is not sufficient consensus among the parties to the agreement. However, all the parties agreed to what was in the agreement. That is the first point. Secondly, which people have not come out in favour of it? Sadly—perhaps because we are dealing with human rights—there are no hon. Members present from the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party or the United Kingdom Unionist party. I regret that. They should be present to answer these points. The Ulster Unionist party is the only party to the agreement that has not come out explicitly in favour of the commission having those powers, despite what is in the agreement. Even if the UUP is the only party to the agreement that is not involved, surely sufficient consensus does exist. Does that mean that the party has a veto on the issue? The second point that I invite my hon. Friend to answer is why the Government took the position that the sufficient consensus rule applied when effective enforcement powers are required by the UN Paris principles, which they know were the minimum standards. I do not understand the Government's position. I welcome most of what my hon. Friend said about the improvement of the clauses, but the right of the Human Rights Commission to hold inquiries is fundamental. I know that the Government will co-operate in every way, as they have said, subject to national security and so on. They will produce the documents and provide the information. If cases arise and the commission is involved under the rules of procedure, it can compel the discovery of documents and subpoena witnesses. I understand that as well. However, with respect to the commission's power to hold inquiries, it is starting off in the knowledge that it cannot oblige people to attend and give evidence, or enforce the discovery of documents. It will be hampered from the outset, and people will be able to cock a snook at it. If, in two years, the commission begins an inquiry and decides that it needs the powers, the Government will say that legislation is necessary. I can see no powers to make statutory orders to change the authority of the Human Rights Commission. If that is the case, we will be fighting for places on the statute book—unless the Assembly decides to introduce such provisions. However, that same negative force, the Ulster Unionist party, could prevent their introduction through Assembly legislation. That is why we have ring-fenced human rights legislation within Westminster: the Assembly will be at the beck and call of particular pressure groups not to get legislation on the statute book. I urge my hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to consider carefully the contents of the Belfast agreement and Mary Robinson's letter, and to decide whether we want to hobble the Human Rights Commission in this way.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He has presented his detailed case with great clarity, and left nothing out of the argument on behalf of his amendment. The establishment of the Human Rights Commission is extremely welcome and significant because it places human rights issues centre stage. That subject has been the cause of much conflict in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. To his credit, I confess that the Minister has entered into much consultation about the Lords amendments, and has addressed many human rights issues that were raised in a debate in this place in the last few weeks of July. Therefore, I shall confine myself to asking the Minister several questions to which I hope he will respond this evening. First, does the Minister accept that, by not granting the commission the power of discovery of documents and the power to compel witness attendance—as my hon. Friend pointed out—it will have fewer powers than are recommended in the United Nations Paris principles, which outline the good practice for national human rights institutions? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the proposed powers are less than those granted to the health and safety bodies, for example, that are already extant in the north of Ireland? That is the situation under the legislation. Thirdly, does the Minister agree that it is desirable that the commission should enjoy the powers of discovery and compulsion in due course? If the commission requests those powers in the two-year review, will the Government respond positively?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull. North (Mr. McNamara) raised several points. He referred to the funding of the Human Rights Commission. We have in mind an indicative figure of £750,000 for the commission's annual budget. That figure will remain under review, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that the commission is properly funded to carry out its functions under the Bill, within the normal constraints of public expenditure control—to which we are all subject. I confirm that my hon. Friend's comments about Westminster legislation were accurate. The main issue that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised related to the proposal to give the Human Rights Commission the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the power of discovery of documents. That significant issue was discussed, not just in the House, but during the recess in several meetings with Members of Parliament, the Northern Ireland political parties, various interest groups and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Many people and institutions were involved in discussions about the matter. We concluded, however, that, because that issue was not specifically referred to in the agreement, and because it was a significant issue in itself, we were not in a position to accede to including it in,the Bill. There was not sufficient consensus as a result of the consultation processes to which I have referred.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the arrangements, the provisions and the legislation to protect human rights in Northern Ireland are, at present, much better than the provisions for any other region of the United Kingdom?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I am sure they are, and 1 sincerely hope that, as a consequence of the Bill, they will be even more so. I am convinced that the people who drew up the agreement, those of us who were in the talks and the people who voted on the agreement believe that the human rights provisions are an important aspect of it, as are the equality provisions.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Can my hon. Friend say where we have drawn, as appropriate, on international instruments and experience, and what his reaction is to what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described as necessary attributes to the Bill?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I do not for one second underestimate the significance of the contributions made by international institutions on these matters. All I am saying is that, where the agreement is silent, it is incumbent on us to consult with all the political parties and Governments who were involved in the talks process, and to come to a conclusion about whether such a proposal would have achieved sufficient consensus had the talks continued. I cannot give an assurance to the House, however, because no such consensus emerged. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from the agreement referring specifically to paragraph 4 at page 17. That is clearly concerned with the commission's consideration of a future Bill of rights. I am absolutely clear that there is a great deal of merit in what my hon. Friend says, and in the representations that have been made to us. That is why the Government have not closed their mind to a review, after two years, if the Human Rights Commission tells us that it cannot do its work without those powers, or that it could do its work much more effectively if those powers were granted to it. We do not know what the Human Rights Commission is likely to say in two years, any more than I know what the Government will say in response to the commission. All I am saying is that the opportunity exists, the door is not closed and the points have been well made. Although we cannot incorporate a review into the Bill because there was insufficient consensus, I believe that much in the Bill that refers to human rights puts Northern Ireland on a much higher plane than all other parts of the United Kingdom and many other countries in Europe and the world. As a consequence, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will not seek to move his amendment to amendment No. 125. We shall await developments.

THE EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

This large group of amendments deals with equality. Like human rights, that is an important feature of the Belfast agreement, and has given rise to intensive debate and scrutiny at all stages of the Bill in the Commons and in the Lords. The amendments make the Bill more effective, and bring it more clearly into line with the agreement. When the Bill was under discussion in this House, much attention was paid to the provisions that sought to create a new equality commission and a statutory obligation on the public sector to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. Since the summer, I have discussed those issues with hon. Members on both sides of the House and with all political parties that are represented in the Assembly. In addition, I have held discussions with SACHR, the chairs of existing equality bodies and, on several occasions, delegations from other bodies and trade unions. Those discussions have been most productive. They have led to many Government amendments in the other place, which we now have to consider. The Government have shown themselves to be flexible in responding to constructive suggestions. We believe that the amendments greatly improve the equality of opportunity provisions, and we are grateful to all who have contributed to the consultative process. Amendments to clauses 58 and schedule 10 amend the powers and procedures of the new unified equality commission. They also give persons serving on the commission the titles of chief commissioner, deputy chief commissioner and commissioner. Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 will require a copy of the commission's annual report to be laid before Parliament as well as the Assembly. In addition, the report will have to give details of steps taken during the year by the commission and by other public authorities to promote equality of opportunity. The Government expect other public authorities to co-operate fully with the equality commission in the preparation of that aspect of the annual report, providing the necessary information on their compliance with the new statutory obligation. I turn to the group of amendments on clause 60 and schedule 10, which deal with the equality of opportunity obligation. Although the principle of a statutory obligation was endorsed by the Good Friday agreement and has been widely accepted by non-governmental organisations, trade unions and others in Northern Ireland, there has been considerable debate about the detail of the proposal; it was the subject of much discussion in Committee. I gave undertakings to consider a number of issues that had been raised and particularly to see whether the Bill could take on board the substantive points of the two new clauses that had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and other hon. Members. There has been much consultation on those matters during recent months. The amendments to clause 60 and schedule 10 that were passed by the other place reflect the outcome of that consultation, providing for much more detail in equality schemes about arrangements for assessing and consulting on the impact of policies. In making decisions on policies, such assessments and consultation must be taken into account. Five-yearly reviews of equality schemes will be required. These amendments integrate the substance of the Committee stage new clauses 4 and 5 that we considered earlier in the year. Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 to clause 60 substitute a new definition of "public authority" for purposes of the clause. They make it clear that the statutory obligation is not confined to Northern Ireland public authorities, but can also include UK Departments such as the Northern Ireland Office, and UK-wide public authorities that carry out functions relating to Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 directly impose a requirement on public authorities, whether they exist now or come into being in the future, to prepare equality schemes. In Committee, it had been argued that the initial request from the commission to prepare a scheme was not fully consistent with the agreement. That issue has now been addressed. Apart from equality schemes, the other main aspect of schedule 10 is the arrangement whereby the commission can challenge a public authority's equality scheme and investigate complaints. Amendments Nos. 316, 318 and 322 require the Assembly to be notified at relevant stages of that process. Amendment No. 323 creates a special procedure for dealing with problematic schemes and complaints where they concern the Northern Ireland Office and other UK Government Departments. That is to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State must reach a decision or issue a direction in a case involving her Department or that of a Cabinet colleague. Those are the significant amendments relating to clause 60 and schedule 10. We believe they have greatly improved the Bill and will impose significant obligations on the public sector in Northern Ireland, with real change in the culture of administration.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the progress that has been made. He has gone as far as possible towards meeting the points that we made in Committee, and those made in another place. However, I should like him to confirm a couple of small points. Where the commission still has power to make exemptions in regard to schemes, will the exemptions apply only when the body that is expected to produce a scheme is part of, or a subsidiary of, a larger body that will produce a scheme covering the subsidiary? I am thinking of, for example, a local authority and a committee, or sub-committee, of that authority. Will the only other exemption—in terms of public authorities—relate to notional circumstances in which a United Kingdom Department would be active in Northern Ireland, but the range and scope of its activity would be so small as to be negligible? Are those the only exemptions that my hon. Friend envisages?

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy in listening to what we have said about the amendments that we tabled in Committee, and for the consultation in which he has engaged. I feel that the amendments bring the Bill into line with the Belfast agreement. For the record, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm what was said by Lord Dubs in another place? Lord Dubs said: To clarify the position, it is the Government's intention that impact assessments under schedule 10 should relate to the whole range of a public authority's policy", not just to policies aimed at promoting equality of opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 810.] Lord Dubs also said that, in the Government's view, nothing in the Bill renders unlawful what would be lawful affirmative action under the existing fair employment, equal opportunities and race relations law … The justification for affirmative actions is that they are necessary to correct existing disadvantage or imbalance in equality of opportunity. Lord Dubs added that the Government were confident that the clauses did not hinder affirmative actions when they were properly directed at promoting equality of opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 713.] It would be helpful to have that on the record.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It is welcome that, during the recess, the Minister was prepared to meet and consult many bodies that are involved in the equality issue. Will he tell us, however, whether all the bodies that will be dissolved under the legislation—the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council-are content with the proposals in the Lords amendments? Have all, or some, of those bodies some reservations? Do they feel that the Government's proposals will not achieve their ends? Will the Minister confirm that working groups will be involved? If so, it would be helpful to know when those groups are expected to report to the Government, and whether the Minister envisages further change as a result of their activities.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to questions that he had raised about the exemption of public authorities from the requirement to prepare schemes. We intend the exemption to be used only in rare circumstances—for instance, when public authorities' activities in Northern Ireland are minimal, and the effort involved in preparing the scheme involved, and having it validated by the commission, would be disproportionate. In other circumstances, it might make sense to exempt a public authority. For instance, all sub-committees of district councils are defined as public authorities. Provided that their activities were fully covered by district councils' own equality schemes, an exemption could avoid each sub-committee having to draw up its own scheme. 11.45 pm My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) mentioned affirmative action. Clause 60 in no way calls into question the ability of public authorities to take affirmative action in appropriate cases to correct disadvantage. Affirmative action in appropriate circumstances is an important method of combating inequality, and it is our firm intention that that should remain so. The clause does not call that into question, and does not render unlawful what would be lawful affirmative action under current anti-discrimination legislation. Furthermore, clause 60 means that public authorities are bound to have regard to the need for affirmative action when considering their duty under the clause. An exemption for affirmative action is therefore unnecessary. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned the current status of the equality commission. As he knows, the four separate commissions in Northern Ireland—dealing with disability, fair employment, gender and race—have expressed various concerns about the future nature of the structures. Nevertheless—to be fair—the fair employment commission believed that the proposals provide the best option. We received many representations from the bodies, and on a number of occasions I have met the chairs of all four commissions. The chairs, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have agreed that an independent chair—Dr. Stringer, from Edinburgh—should be appointed. In the next couple of months, Dr. Stringer will go and work with the four commission chairs, examine the structures that we have to deal with and devise the best possible structure—which will be one that is accepted by all the commissions and by the wider community in Northern Ireland. The proposal seems now to be generally accepted by the commissions. I look forward to the report, which I hope will be available fairly speedily.

DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 149 relate to clause 61, which prevents discrimination by public authorities on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. They are all technical amendments that improve the comprehensiveness and consistency of the clause's provisions. The group of six amendments—Lords amendments Nos. 150 to 155—all relate to clause 62, which prevents organisations from requiring individuals to make certain oaths and declarations. They, too, are all simple, technical and drafting amendments. Lords amendment No. 156 relates to clause 63, and slightly increases the circumstances in which restrictions or investigations into complaints should not apply. The restrictions will, as a consequence of the amendment, not apply to investigations into the aiding and inciting of discrimination and will not apply to investigations into discrimination itself. Lords amendment No. 385 is a technical amendment to schedule 14. In moving the Lords amendments, I should like to commend the organisations and parties that have in the past few months been consulted by the Government and had many discussions and negotiations with me and my ministerial colleagues. They have very positively helped to strengthen the Bill.

New clause

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendments concern delegated powers. Most of them are technical. However, amendment No. 171 deals with a provision that has caused some concern and considerable debate. The issue has been raised in earlier debates. Old clause 71, drawing on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, permitted orders in council to make provision about any reserved matter. We have re-examined the issue, taking into account the views expressed by various parties, and come to the conclusion that there is still a need to retain some of those powers. However, we have taken into account the views expressed and have cut back the matters that can be covered and introduced a consultation mechanism by which the views of the Assembly can also be taken into account. I commend the amendments to the House.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that orders in council that might be forthcoming on fair employment will not be implemented until the Assembly has had an opportunity to look at them?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

There is no inconsistency on the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). We refer to the Government of Ireland, except when the word "Republic" is required for clarity. The parliamentary draftsmen have been precise, and are conscious of the problem. Any matters that remain to be dealt with before the Assembly comes into place will need to be proceeded with. The Government still have important issues to deal with. We have to proceed as best we can on the present basis before the full Assembly is up and running. The Government intend to legislate on fair employment before devolution is fully in place.

POWERS OF COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO VARY RETROSPECTIVE DECISIONS

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendments relate to judicial proceedings. We have provided rights for the devolved authorities to be represented on devolution issues under schedule 11, in consideration of the powers of the courts to vary retrospective decisions under clause 69. We have also added to the list of devolution issues so that all questions appropriate for this special procedure are covered. There is a clause to guide the courts in the interpretation of Assembly Bills. I commend the amendments to the House.

CONSULTATION AND CO-ORDINATION

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 192, 196 to 200, 205 to 221, 349 to 363, 365 to 372, 378, 379, 384 and 386 to 417.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not intend to deal specifically with all the amendments, but the group features many miscellaneous provisions, several consequential on changes of substance earlier in the Bill. They include further provision to permit proper co-ordination between the social security systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, several additions to the list of provisions to commence on the passing of the Bill, further guidance on interpretation, and a range of consequential changes to existing legislation, resulting from the Bill's main provisions. I commend all the amendments to the House.

New clause

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendments establish a new tribunal to which an individual can appeal if the Secretary of State issues a national security, public safety or public order certificate. The provisions were introduced during the Lords stages, so I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I spend a little time explaining their background and purpose. That will also set the context for dealing with the views likely to be expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the amendment that he has tabled to amendment. No. 194. The tribunal originates from the European Court of Human Rights ruling this summer in the Tinnelly and McElduff cases. In that ruling, the United Kingdom was found to be in breach of article 6 of the convention because no right of appeal exists against certificates issued under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland Act) 1976. The Government recognised that the certification powers in the Bill, which restate the long-standing powers in section 23 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, were deficient in the light of that ruling. The new tribunal is intended to ensure compliance with the European Court of Human Rights, and to fulfil the agreement commitment to review the national security certification powers. We also gave a commitment on Second Reading, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, to consider these powers in the light of the ECHR ruling. The tribunal established by amendments Nos. 193 and 194 represents a major step forward in providing a mechanism through which an individual can challenge a certificate. Amendment No. 193 introduces a new test: not only will the tribunal consider whether an act was undertaken for the reasons stated in the certificate, it will also consider whether the act was justified. Those are important new safeguards for the individual. Other considerations also apply, however, and must be given due weight. Safeguarding national security is a primary function of all Governments, and we continue to believe that it is essential to protect the intelligence information that gave rise to the original act and, ultimately, to the certificate. At the same time, we fully accept the need to provide a mechanism through which an individual can challenge a certificate. That remains, and will continue to be, a question of balance. It is a difficult one, but I believe that we have got it right. Indeed, the Court noted in its ruling: it should be possible to modify judicial procedures in such a way as to safeguard national security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial degree of procedural justice. The Government believe that we have achieved precisely that balance in establishing the new tribunal. Amendment No. 348 specifically provides that the tribunal will be chaired by an individual holding high judicial office. The key to achieving the balance appears in proposed subsection (7) in amendment 194, which enables the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate to represent the interests of the appellant. That will ensure that the appellant will be represented fully by a suitably qualified person. However, we cannot provide the appellant with access to what might be extremely sensitive intelligence information or to any part of the proceedings under examination by the tribunal. We were not required to do so by the European Court of Human Rights ruling. The Government fully recognise that the special advocate provisions are unusual, in that they modify the arrangements one would normally expect to see in appeals proceedings. However, these arrangements will play an important role in safeguarding national security and they do have a precedent—they are based directly on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, similarly established following a European Court of Human Rights ruling and approved by this House in 1997. 12 midnight My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North has tabled an amendment to remove the provision that, while the special advocate will represent the appellant, he will not be responsible to him. That provision is also based directly on the SIAC, and it might be helpful if I explained briefly why it is necessary. The special advocate will not be able to take instructions from the appellant in the normal way, because he will have access to information which he cannot share or discuss. It would be wrong, therefore, to impose on the advocate the normal responsibilities one would find in a client-lawyer relationship. The provision reflects the relationship between the advocate and the appellant, but does so in the context that the advocate is required to represent him. I have no doubt that the appellant's case will be argued to the full. This important provision follows logically from the special advocate arrangements, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will give further consideration to the point. I am sure that we will debate the matter in the time available. I trust that the House will welcome the establishment of the tribunal. I do know that some hon. Members were concerned about whether the provisions provided sufficient safeguards for individuals. However, I hope that the House will agree that special arrangements—which are based directly on existing statutory provisions—are essential to safeguard national security, and that the balance we have aimed for has been achieved in the amendments, which, again, I commend to the House.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I shall be very quick, because others want to get in. Does the House think that it is fair that a tribunal can take place without the applicant who has suffered a wrong having knowledge of the evidence which is being used against him; that part of it may be held in secret without him or his lawyer being present; that the tribunal, at best, need give him only a summary of what has been said; and that the proceedings may be held in his absence? What does the House think of a prosecutor, the Attorney-General, appointing a barrister to represent the accused—who is called the appellant or respondent in this case—who has no responsibility to that person at all; who will argue a case in the absence of the accused; who will not be able to make any judgment whatever about the way in which the case has been handled; and who is chosen from a panel picked by his accusers? That cannot be right and fair in any way. My amendment relates to the part of the Lords amendment No. 194 which says that a person appointed to represent the appellant shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland … shall not be responsible to the party whose interests he represents. Therefore, I want to know what reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to the chairman of the Bar Council, because this issue is important to its members. In his letter, the chairman said: We have just become aware of the proposed procedure in the Government amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill—National Security Certificates whereby the Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party to proceedings before the Tribunal in any proceedings from which he and any legal representative of his are excluded. It is proposed that the person appointed shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and shall not"— not is underlined— be responsible to the party whose interests he represents. He continues: It is our preliminary view that such a procedure may put the barrister appointed in an impossible situation. By virtue of our Code of Conduct a barrister has certain obligations with which he must comply and we believe it may be impossible for him to discharge some under the above-mentioned procedure. Accordingly we consider it important that we have the opportunity to discuss and respond to the proposal and we ask you to note our said interest. We await hearing from you as soon as possible. I tabled a question asking what reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent, but have not yet received a reply. I did not know about the original letter until last Thursday or Friday. We are talking about a case in which one does not know the evidence against one, one cannot be told it and one cannot be fully represented. One could lose one's livelihood. What is more, one's character is besmirched. In principle, that is as bad as the old exclusion order. It is dressed up and jazzed up, but at the end of the day one just does not know. However, we do know of the malicious way in which those orders have been used in Northern Ireland.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) seemed to be rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I assumed that he wanted to speak.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

However, I will not give way, because I have not yet said anything. I was trying to be gracious to the hon. and learned Gentleman in the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised a number of issues, with which I shall try to deal. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for North Down may get a chance to intervene. On the rights of the individual relative to the rights of the rest of society, we are setting up the tribunal to protect the rights of the individual. However, sensitive intelligence information is gathered by brave men and women who put their lives on the line daily and who are unseen, unheard and in many ways unapplauded because of the nature of their jobs—trying to ensure that those who carry out extreme, or potentially extreme, actions against the state are made known to the authorities. Therefore, when sensitive information is involved, it must be protected, because, by exposing it, we may be exposing the people who have gathered it on behalf of the rest of us. We have taken account of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and put in place precisely our interpretation of it. We have also put in place mechanisms to defend the interests of the individual. So the individual's rights are indeed protected, and I entirely refute the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North presented his arguments. We have dealt with the matter in the right way—right in the interests of the whole of society. We have also achieved the best protection of the rights of the individual that was possible. My hon. Friend also referred to the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. He may not be aware of this, but discussions have been taking place between the council and the Attorney-General. This evening, the Bar Council met and formed a sub-committee to look into the matter in greater detail. It has been charged with reporting to the council within one week. Clearly, we are at the final point—we are moving towards the passage of this legislation. We shall take account of the sub-committee's report to the Government, as members of the Bar will be asked to represent the interests of the individuals concerned.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The point that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is making is that a balance must be struck between the conflicting interests of the state and the individual. I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way towards meeting European human rights criteria by appointing a barrister to look after the individual's rights and make representations. Presumably the barrister will see the reasons for granting the certificate, but why should he, without revealing the contents of the certificate, be prevented from taking detailed instructions from his client so that he can fully represent that client's interests? I do not believe that the barrister can fully represent his client unless he knows both the client's case and the contents of the certificate.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not a lawyer. As I understand the client-lawyer relationship, it would restrict the lawyer if we were to proceed as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests—the lawyer would be in receipt of information that he could not impart to the client or appellant. The Bar Council in England has also had to consider those matters, although in relation to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I understand that a SIAC case in which the issue will be tested is pending. We shall clearly have to consider whether the measure is robust and strikes a balance between the interests of appellants and of national security. I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I am sure that the Bar Council of Northern Ireland, in which he takes an interest, will make its representations known through its sub-committee—its concerns will then be subject to further discussion and consultation with the Attorney-General. We are conscious of the difficulties, but we must protect both the national interest and the interest of the appellant.