asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, since early summer we have received 44 representations on consumer legislation. Representations have been received from national organisations such as the National Association of Consumer Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association and the Federation of Small Businesses and from individuals and Members of Parliament.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that consumer complaints to local trading standards officers about unsatisfactory goods and services are now running at the rate of 1 million per year? The National Consumer Council estimates that there are probably 85 million cases per year of unsatisfactory goods and services. In such circumstances, does not the Minister feel it would be appropriate for the Government to put a new consumer Act at the top of their legislative programme?

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the bad news is that I cannot anticipate what might be contained in the Queen's Speech. The good news is that a great deal of what the noble Lord and the Government want can be achieved without primary legislation. In particular, the use of secondary legislation and the application of the EC injunctives directive have the prospect of making the existing law more effective.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the more serious abuses of consumers is intimidation and harassment by debt collectors, especially of elderly people? The present sanction of withdrawing a debt collector's licence is something of a nuclear option. Does not my noble friend think that it would be better to have a range of sanctions, including fines imposed by trading standards officers, to deal with the malpractices of debt collectors?

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. His successor at the Office of Fair Trading also agrees. My noble friend will have seen that Mr John Vickers has announced increased activity by the Office of Fair Trading through the use of trading standards officers of local councils under the powers given by the EC injunctives directive, to which I referred earlier.

My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. I have been a victim of punitive debt collectors who threatened distress on my home for a seven year-old debt. I told them, "Look, rather than this, I shall pay. But I shall report you to the appropriate ministry". They backed down. Does the Minister agree that we need some help from government?

My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord's bad experience. I cannot think it happened because he is elderly. The existing legislation has only had available criminal sanctions, which, as has been said, are a nuclear option. We need greater use of local action and injunctions. That would go some way towards dealing with a problem which will continue to crop up.

My Lords, will the Government consider reintroducing some of the provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1927 which were inexplicably omitted from the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Will the noble Lord undertake to investigate this issue? I think he will find that there is merit in my suggestion.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his lesson in history. My knowledge does not go back that far. I shall have to write to him about the provisions of the 1927 Act which were not re-enacted. It would seem that he has made a valid point.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that when I introduced my Private Member's Bill on counterfeiting and copyright theft earlier this year his response was so constructive and positive that I withdrew the Bill? I know that the industry has been in touch with the department. How much progress has been made in those private talks? Does the Minister anticipate that progress will be made towards introducing legislation in regard to counterfeiting and copyright theft?

My Lords, I cannot comment on the private talks to which the noble Lord refers. The best hope of getting action on his admirable Private Member's Bill is not through primary legislation but through more direct action. I cite in particular the establishment of Trust UK, a form of self-regulation for e-commerce in which the Consumers' Association and the CBI are joined. That is not the same point as the one made by the noble Lord but it may be a way forward for the problems he identifies.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Department of Health does not collect information on the number of committees operating within the National Health Service. The Government are, however, committed to saving £1 billion on management costs over five years from 1997–98 and are well on course to do so.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that to ask even as energetic a Minister as himself to count up to so vast a number would be unreasonable. I hope that the noble Lord agrees with me on this matter. Will he do all that he can to cut out a fungus that has been growing for years, stifling initiative, blurring responsibility and wasting resources? It is a terrible phenomenon.

Well, my Lords, I had considered whether to set up a committee to inquire into the number of committees! I fully accept that the National Health Service needs a lean administrative structure, and that is our aim. I accept also that we should, so far as possible, attempt to make decisions in time-limited task forces and small groups which bring together managers, commissions and other professional staff within the National Health Service, overseen by the necessary statutory committees.

I must, however, say to the noble Lord—whose autobiography is a very good read—that he himself is not short of sitting on a committee or two. I particularly commend his membership of the Confederation of European Ministers of Transport, which he describes as an "unusual international body". He says that it,

"generated goodwill, mutual understanding, and never even looked for anything to have a row about".

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving my book a much-needed puff!

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that I asked a question earlier this year to which he was not able to give an answer—namely, how many layers of management there are in the National Health Service between a staff nurse in a hospital and the Secretary of State? Has anyone managed to count them, or is the figure too high for a human to comprehend?

My Lords, I do not recall the noble Lord putting the question in precisely that manner. Clearly, it is not possible to describe the activities of 500 different organisations in the National Health Service. Each will have different management arrangements. We are seeking to ensure that decisions are made as speedily as possible. I have no doubt that the NHS Plan, which is focused on ensuring that doctors, nurses and other professionals are fully involved in decision-making, will lead to the most effective decisions being taken as quickly as possible.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that my noble friend Lord Peyton makes an essentially wise point—namely, that the decision-making processes in the NHS are often painfully slow and cumbersome? What initiatives have the Government taken to streamline decision-making and to bring about savings?

My Lords, as I explained, we are well on course to make the savings that I mentioned. As a percentage of NHS expenditure, the total spent on management costs has come down from 5.5 per cent in 1996–97 to 4.6 per cent in 1999–00. We shall continue to make reductions in management costs, as we have pledged to do. The most visible example of the Government's approach to more effective and streamlined management is the establishment of the NHS Plan. It was produced within four months, and involved nearly 150 people working in the front line of health to bring about change. As a result, we have produced a practical, effective plan which will lead to major change. We are expecting each local health community to undertake a similar process, which I believe will be equally successful.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people—of whom I am one—no longer believe that there are too many chiefs as opposed to not enough indians in the Health Service? There may not be enough indians, but the service certainly needs strong management at the top. It is wrong to think that such a huge enterprise can be run without that. Does the Minister agree on the importance of top management?

Yes, indeed, my Lords; the quality of leadership in the NHS is crucial. That is why, in the NHS Plan, we have set out proposals for establishing a leadership centre in order to identify and give support to the lay managers and professional managers who will lead the NHS through a process of change. But at the same time we need to ensure that we reduce unnecessary administration to a minimum level. That was the whole purpose of abolishing the internal market, which made the NHS suffer through a countless and endless paperchase. We have very good leadership in the NHS. That will lead to effective change in the way services are provided.

My Lords, the Minister focuses on committees and leadership. Given that his interest in these subjects is now aroused, will he recall that a committee cannot lead? Leadership comes from individuals. Is it too late to look back to the hospital matron, who has disappeared from the National Health Service—to its eternal loss?

My Lords, I commend to the noble Lord the NHS Plan, which refers to the creation of "modern matrons". It is true that, over a period of 20 years, senior ward sisters have lost autonomy. Functional management in relation to catering and cleaning has taken away their responsibility for the direct management of individual wards. One of the most important ways in which we can improve patients' quality of experience is to give back to senior ward sisters many more powers than they have had in the past few years. That is what the concept of the "modern matron" is all about.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Salmon report did away with matrons, sisters and so on? It was implemented by Sir Keith Joseph.

Yes, my Lords. That report also created an extensive hierarchy. In the past few years, particularly with the introduction of the internal market and general management, the hierarchy was removed. This created problems because, having attained a level above that of ward sister, very few nurses entered senior management positions. At board level in particular, a senior nurse became a professional adviser rather than a manager. We need to turn that situation around. We need senior nurse leaders who can have an enormously influential impact on the quality of decisions taken within an individual hospital.

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government do not know how many committees there are within the NHS. If they do not know the number of such committees, how will they know when the number is reduced?

My Lords, we are talking about 516 NHS bodies. It would be quite a waste of time and resources for us to undertake a census or audit of each committee in existence within such bodies. We use the concept of management costs as a way of keeping control on the amount of money spent on management. As I explained, we are seeing a reduction in management costs that will net the health service £1 billion for expenditure on patient services over a five-year period.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we shall be very keen to help him count the number of committees that are cut out as a result of that process?

asked the Leader of the House:

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. No one is more enthusiastic than I about improving the procedures of this House so that we use our time efficiently while retaining proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness will be aware that any change needs the agreement of the House, and that there is little scope for executive action. However, proposals are being discussed. One is to consider more Bills under the Grand Committee procedures in the Moses Room, which would certainly achieve the noble Baroness's aim. Unfortunately, at the moment, the opposition to that change comes from her side of the House.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply. Does she accept that 134 hours in the spill-over have been spent discussing legislation in Committee? Many of the Bills under consideration have been badly drafted—indeed, a number of noble Lords have complained about this—which has resulted in an enormous number of government amendments being tabled. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that this, in turn, has led to a lot of very tired, and sometimes rather ill-tempered, Peers in the Chamber. This has also affected the staff, especially the Hansard writers, who are extremely tired.

My Lords, I certainly agree that we have been sitting for longer than another place in the spill-over period. However, if the noble Baroness were to look at the comparative figures of the number of hours that we have been sitting, she would see that during the previous Session the House sat, on average, for seven hours and 36 minutes each day. Moreover, in each of the previous four Sessions, the average sitting day was also over seven hours. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to be very aware of the stress and strain put on the staff who serve us so well.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that we had a debate tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston earlier in the year, not only on the question of hours but much more besides? Perhaps my noble friend could advise the House what has been done since then, and tell us what has been achieved.

My Lords, we have put forward various proposals, one of which was considered by the Procedure Committee last week. At that time, my noble friend the Government Chief Whip suggested that it might be sensible for the House to sit at different, not fewer, hours on a Thursday, beginning in the morning and ending in the evening. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that that proposal from the Government Chief Whip was rejected by the Procedure Committee.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many amendments have been proposed by the Government, both in Committee and on Report, to government legislation in this House during the current Session? If the answer to that question is what I suspect it will be, does the noble Baroness agree that the main culprit is not the procedures of this House but the inability of the Government properly to prepare their legislation? Indeed, when the Government realise that they have failed to do so, they use this House as a means of rewriting legislation wholesale and then ram it through another place without proper consideration. Does the noble Baroness further agree that the proposal that she has just made about taking a greater proportion of Committee stage business off the Floor of the House will actually make it easier for the Government to ram through more legislation, rather than it being considered properly?

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with any of the points made by the noble Viscount, especially the final one. I did not suggest—indeed, I have never suggested—that the majority of Committee stages should be held in the Moses Room: I simply said that the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels have discussed the possibility of more Bills being considered in the Moses Room. For example, during this Session it has been possible to agree that Committee stages in the Moses Room should be taken only on Bills that will last just one day. As I understand it, that has not been the situation in previous Sessions.

I turn now to the number of amendments passed this year. As I am sure the noble Viscount is aware, information on the number of government amendments, as opposed to other amendments, is not kept in that form. However, I can give the noble Viscount the total number of amendments: during this Session 3,936 amendments were tabled, compared to 2,002 in the previous Session and 2,164 in 1992–93. Although the number of amendments for this year is large, I am sure that both the noble Viscount and noble Lords will see that it is not out of proportion when compared with other years.

My Lords, in addition to taking more Committee stages off the Floor of the House—after all, Committee stages are intended to explore the ramifications and details of Bills—would it be of assistance to the House if we were to accept the proposal that votes should not be taken during Committee? Surely the taking of such votes on Report would be more appropriate for a part-time House, as this is.

My Lords, that is another matter that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has sought to raise. Indeed, it is something that I should very much support.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a strong case for increasing the number of Bills that are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, because that is one way of seeking to improve legislation?

Yes, my Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. Reverting to the subject of the previous discussion about Bills being taken off the Floor of the House, the noble Lord was heavily involved in the financial services legislation that was considered this Session. I believe that that Bill was proposed as being suitable for detailed scrutiny off the Floor of the House, but, unfortunately, that could not be agreed.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that one of the main contributing factors to the time taken both in Committee and on Report is that there are long debates in Committee, after which the amendment is withdrawn, but then the debate is repeated almost word for word on Report?

My Lords, that problem has certainly seemed to arise fairly regularly in Bills with which I have been involved. I suspect that it is a matter that could be looked at if we had the capacity to consider the procedures and workings of this House in a general way.

My Lords, this has been a most unusual Session; indeed, the House has worked extremely hard, especially towards the latter part of it. Does the noble Baroness agree that the House has, on the whole, done its job extremely well? Will the noble Baroness take just a little bit of responsibility for the way that the Government have treated this House? Further, will she reconsider her answer to my noble friend Lord Cranborne? Is it not a fact that there have been a record number of amendments made to Bills brought forward by the Government? Bills have had their Second Readings months before being brought to the House for their Committee stages. There have also been massive gaps between the first and second days in Committee. All this has arisen because government Ministers have failed to make up their minds and decide what it is that they have to do. It culminated in, for example, over 100 pages of government amendments being tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that that will not happen again?

My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that I was responding to a point from his noble friend Lord Cranborne about the total number of amendments that have been passed. I hope that I was fair in my resume. As I said—I repeat it—the statistics are not produced in a form to show which are government amendments and which are others. A large number of amendments were tabled, for example, to the financial services legislation, which was referred to earlier.

As my noble friend the Chief Whip says so often when these matters are raised, this is a listening Government. I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that this is an unusual Session. At the risk of being repetitive, I refer to the statistics for third Sessions, going back to 1981–82. I have been challenged to recite those statistics. In the 1981–82 third Session, 46 Bills were passed: in 1985–86, 49 Bills; in 1989–90, 34 Bills; in 1994–95, 37 Bills, and we expect this year to pass 39 Bills.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the fifth round of the bilateral human rights dialogue took place in London between 16th and 18th October. We discussed our concerns on a wide range of human rights issues. Although there was little progress on some issues such as the Falun Gong and freedom of religion, there was greater Chinese willingness to provide more detailed responses to our concerns and there were positive outcomes, including Chinese willingness to sign a memorandum of understanding with Mary Robinson on the provision of human rights technical assistance on 20th November; to accept in principle visits by UN special rapporteurs; and to provide further information on the list of individual cases submitted by the Government.

My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that China is going backwards, with the repression of the democracy movement, the severe persecution of the Falun Gong and the persecution of anyone who tries to uphold the Tibetan identity? Among the individual cases that the Government raised with the Chinese during the dialogue, did the noble Baroness include the five nuns who committed suicide in Drapchi prison because they could no longer endure the torture to which they were subjected?

My Lords, we accept that there are many challenges in relation to China's human rights record. The fact that we are having this dialogue is important because it enables us, perhaps for the first time, to have an in-depth conversation about these difficult and painful issues. I do not know the precise names of the five nuns that the noble Lord mentioned, but in relation to Tibetan and other prisoners we have specifically raised cases and talked about them in depth. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord about the case of the five nuns.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Falun Gong. Is it not the case that numerous other religious bodies, whether Christian, Islamic or Buddhist, suffer constant harassment and persecution and that sometimes long prison sentences are imposed on their members for expressing their conscientious beliefs? Will the Government continue to raise these matters, regardless of the answer they receive from the Government of China, because until China ceases this kind of activity it cannot be accepted into the civilised body of nations?

My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will continue to raise these issues in relation to human rights. They are matters of deep concern and the noble Lord is right to raise them. However, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the dialogue gives us an opportunity to do this in a specific and direct way.

My Lords, given the still deteriorating Chinese human rights record—I believe that we all recognise that—can the noble Baroness assure us that the European Union arms embargo is still in place? Are we following the same rules as our European partners? Now that the US Congress has more or less given an unconditional green light to permanent normal trade relations with China, how does that affect our attitude to trade with China in the context of human rights?

My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord in relation to the arms embargo. As he knows, the EU imposed an embargo on the export of arms to China following the events of Tiananmen Square in June 1989. The embargo is not a full scope one. The UK's interpretation of it was set out by my late honourable friend Mr Fatchett in his reply to Parliament on 3rd June 1998. We do not sell any of the items he set out that would contravene that interpretation. Our interpretation of the embargo covers lethal weapons such as machine guns, large calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, rockets etcetera—the whole list.

In relation to our own policy we have taken a robust stance. As I said earlier, we continue to raise the issue of human rights. I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to the way in which our friends the Americans are going, but I reassure him that Her Majesty's Government's policy remains the same in relation to trade, arms and raising human rights issues.

My Lords, in her initial Answer my noble friend referred to one of the positive elements of the dialogue. Will she go further and give us some examples of other benefits that have come from the dialogue?

My Lords, as I said earlier, the dialogue has enabled us to raise in depth a wide range of problems. It has created a conducive environment for a range of co-operative projects. For example, this year alone we are running a range of rule of law projects, including the role of defence lawyers, the strengthening of a proposed new evidence law and human rights training for young lawyers. We also have projects tackling issues such as child trafficking and promoting human rights awareness. We have encouraged China to move forward in co-operating with international human rights mechanisms. For instance, China signed the two UN human rights covenants in 1997 and 1998; and we expect them to sign a MOU with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on 20th November. Those are just some of the matters we have been able to achieve during the process I mentioned.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Monday 27th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;

That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;

That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;

That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 5, leave out ("or primarily").

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we had a debate in Grand Committee which reflected some of the fundamental arguments on the Bill to which any Member of your Lordships' House could have contributed had he so wished. We also had a debate at Second Reading about the basis on which the Government believe that it is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life to allow the slaughter for their fur of animals kept specifically for that purpose. That is the fundamental basis of the Bill. Whether it is appropriate to outlaw that form of farming on grounds of public morality and ethical standards is an area of fundamental disagreement among some Members of your Lordships' House and another place.

There has been great debate about it. There are disagreements. However, the Government are firmly of the view that it is justified and that the arrangements in respect of those farmers affected have been made on the proper timescale with the appropriate compensation arrangements. At the urging of noble Lords, during passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, we have considered that issue carefully. We have taken on board the issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House. We have amended the Bill to ensure that the compensation arrangements cover income as well.

However, we cannot accept the amendment. It would undermine fundamentally the purpose of the Bill. It would remove from the scope of the Bill any animals kept primarily for slaughter for the value of the fur where there was any by-product. It would not matter what the nature of the by-product was—for example, whether it was meat for human or animal consumption, or animals kept for show, or stud animals, or those kept for oils or fats for cosmetics, lubricants or any possible usage. If there were any byproduct it would mean that the animal was not being kept solely for its fur. In effect, a coach and horses would be driven through the main purpose of the Bill. The size of the loophole that the amendment would create is not acceptable to the Government. It would undermine the primary purpose.

I accept that the noble Lord and others may genuinely believe that this primary purpose is not a correct one. We have argued that out. I believe that we have had proper scrutiny of what we are doing. The Government have taken on board the concerns expressed. I believe that now the National Farmers Union and the affected farmers believe that appropriate steps have been taken. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. I think that she fails to appreciate that in this country mink—I believe that they are the Government's target—have no usable by-products. In the United States I understand that after the fur has been removed, mink meat can be used for fertiliser and possibly pet food; and mink oil, for some reason, is extremely valuable. I was told this morning that Jerry Hall uses it on her hair—which gives food for thought. If the amendment were accepted, it would still not prevent the Government from banning mink farming. However, I do not think that I shall move the Government or the House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out ("£00,000") and insert (level 5 on the standard scale").

My Lords, I accept, as the noble Lord says, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It looks at the appropriate level of maximum line that should be available to the courts on the offence being proved of keeping animals for their fur.

First, I make clear that, if there were successful convictions, the maximum of £20,000 is per offence of keeping animals for fur and not per animal kept. It is the Government's view that the effect of the amendment—it would reduce the maximum fine to £5,000—would not act as sufficient deterrent to the keeping of animals for slaughter for their fur once the ban is in force. I understand that the number of mink kept can range substantially from a few thousand animals up to 30,000 or more per farm. Each animal is worth approximately £20 and in the Government's view a maximum fine of £5,000 would not act as a sufficient deterrent.

I should make clear that £20,000 is a maximum fine and the court would have the discretion to impose a lesser penalty if it deemed that to be appropriate. I suggest to the House that it is sensible to leave that as the maximum, appreciating that the courts would take a proportionate view according to the scale of the business conducted. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her, as always, considered and emollient reply. I do not thank the Official Opposition for their silence. It is extraordinary that a party which professes to oppose political correctness sits firmly glued to the Bench when there is a chance to demonstrate its professed aims. None the less, it is a matter for that party.

I should dearly like to divide the House. However, there are no more than 25 noble Lords in the Chamber. The remainder have not heard the arguments for and against the issue. It would be foolish, therefore, to divide the House now. I shall postpone pressing the matter until the next stage when the House will be full for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the national press will be present in force. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I was not asleep on the Bench, but, having heard the Question earlier this afternoon, I did not want to repeat my speech three times.

I have every sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, as my comments at Second Reading and in Grand Committee clearly show. However, I have discussed the three amendments with the National Farmers Union, which represents the 12 fur farmers who will be deprived of their legitimate livelihood by the Bill and who have been unable to trade sensibly or develop their businesses over the past two years. The NFU has assured me that it is satisfied with the state of the Bill as it stands, including the Government's commitment to adequate compensation. We therefore do not support the amendments.

My Lords, on these Benches we support the swiftest possible passage of the Bill through the House. As far as we are aware, the amendment would merely delay the process and would be costly and bureaucratic. We therefore cannot support it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is correct about the technical aspects of the amendments. They would add unnecessary time and process to the business of implementing a measure that has been fully scrutinised and carefully drawn up, with implementation dates that are appropriate to an orderly run-down rather than a precipitate one.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, went to the heart of the issue, which is whether the Bill is aimed solely, or even primarily, to use the terms of the Bill, at animal welfare issues. Those who have kept up with the debate as the Bill has passed through the House know that it is not the Government's contention that the aim of the measure is to implement high animal welfare standards. Those are within European competence. We work with our colleagues in Europe to ensure that the welfare of farmed animals is properly protected and that there are high standards of animal welfare. Those provisions extend to fur or rabbit farming just as to other areas of farming.

The Bill is not about the level or implementation of animal welfare standards; it is about whether, at the beginning of the 21st century, it is appropriate to keep animals with a view to their slaughter solely or primarily to exploit the value of their fur. That moral issue goes over and above welfare considerations. In our view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life, and there is insufficient public benefit from the activity to justify destroying that life or breeding animals for that purpose. That is why we believe that it is appropriate to strike at the root of fur farming rather than simply to take action on welfare conditions. We shall continue to work nationally and in Europe to ensure high standards across the range of welfare concerns for farmed animals.

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for confirming that the purpose of the Bill is not to implement high welfare standards and that it is essentially doctrinal—I can think of no better word.

I take issue with the Minister's assertion that the Bill has been fully scrutinised. A Bill that has been examined only in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, when very few noble Lords turn up, cannot be said to have been fully scrutinised.

I am aware that the NFU and the core of beleaguered fur farmers who have been attacked by sinister individuals in black balaclavas year after year favour the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said. They see no other end that would give them even the slightest justice. However, the interests of the NFU and the fur farmers are not automatically the same as the national interest. The Bill sets a terrible precedent. The Government could decide that a certain practice of which some Ministers—not necessarily all—disapprove is morally unacceptable and they could ban it by using their massive parliamentary majority.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("section") in line 6.

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions so that I fully understand the thrust of his amendment. First, he referred to the House of Commons. Does his amendment imply that membership of this place would also be barred?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am trying to remember what happened some time ago. I believe that Seamus Mallon, Leader of the SDLP, Deputy First Minister and Member of Parliament, was at one point offered a seat in the Senate in Dublin but had to decline because he was barred from doing so. If I am right in my somewhat hazy recollection of events from the past, does the noble Lord believe that it would be inappropriate for Seamus Mallon to be a member of the Senate in Dublin?

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for raising his second point. With regard to his first point, I should of course know but I believe that I am right in saying that my amendments do not include the House of Lords. Later I shall table an amendment which touches on the House of Lords. However, the principle behind the amendment is to retain the House of Commons disqualification, thus removing the part of the Bill that applies to disqualification for membership of the House of Commons if one is a member of another Parliament.

With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord in relation to Seamus Mallon, as I understand it the law was altered in 1998 to allow him to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am not sure whether he ever sat simultaneously in the Senate and in the House of Commons. I believe that he probably did not, but I hope that I may be enlightened on that matter while the debate proceeds.

I am also unsure as to whether Seamus Mallon was an elected or an appointed member of the Senate. I believe that he was probably the latter, and that makes a considerable difference to the argument. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point and I hope that the matter may be made crystal clear because it is germane to everything in the Bill. I beg to move.

I understand that Seamus Mallon was, indeed, appointed as a member of the Senate in 1982. However, he was not elected to the House of Commons until some years after he had left the Senate. During his time in the Senate some controversy arose as to whether he could be a member of the then Assembly in Northern Ireland. The matter went to the courts, but in the end the answer was that he could not.

However, that is irrelevant to this Bill except by allusion because, as my noble friend said, the Bill does two things. It permits a member of the Irish House of Commons to sit for a United Kingdom constituency in Westminster at the same time and it also makes it legal for an Irish MP to sit at the same time in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as in the Dail. My noble friend's amendment draws our attention specifically to the question of dual membership of the two Houses of Commons—that is, another place and the Dail.

My noble friend also pointed out that this Bill was sold to your Lordships at Second Reading as the correction of a legal anomaly that had somehow entered our law because of the position of Commonwealth countries. Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth until 1949 but left voluntarily. Discussion is taking place as to whether it might return at some point, but I do not believe that at present that is seriously on the table. But, in any event, that would alter the position in a whole series of very important respects.

I do not believe that the Commonwealth analogy stands up to any form of examination. I shall return to that on a later amendment, which is more directly related to it. For the moment, I merely assert that the idea that this Bill somehow corrects an anomaly by bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth in that respect is rubbish.

My noble friend also drew attention to the fact that we have not had answers to the two most important questions: first, who wants this change; and secondly, why are the Government prepared to expend scarce parliamentary time in trying to achieve it?

As regards representing two constituencies in two parliaments at the same time, the first matter that I should point out is that nobody in this country can represent two different constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons. It is not allowed; it is illegal. It is legally possible to stand in a general election for two or more different constituencies, and in days gone by, that was regularly done. But then, as now, if someone happened to be elected for two separate constituencies, he would have to choose one or the other before taking his seat in another place. So you cannot sit as a Member for two separate constituencies in the House of Commons; yet this proposition is that people should sit for two separate constituencies in two different parliaments in different jurisdictions.

I looked up the last person to achieve that feat of winning two constituencies in the same Westminster general election and it was Mr O'Brien. That is not, I hasten to add, Mr Mike O'Brien, the Home Office Minister who helped to recommend this Bill to another place, but a Mr William O'Brien. Interestingly enough, it was in southern Ireland, before the creation of the Republic, when southern Ireland was represented in the House of Commons, along with the rest of the United Kingdom. That Mr William O'Brien was elected in the 1910 general election to serve in the House of Commons for both Cork City and the county constituency of Cork North East. The Committee may be interested to hear that he elected to serve for the city of Cork, and another Member was duty elected to serve the county constituency.

Nobody, to my knowledge, in recent years has even tried to repeat that success by standing for two constituencies at once. But if a candidate were successful in doing so, he, like Mr O'Brien, would have to choose which one he wished to represent.

In passing, I should draw the Home Office's attention to what I believe to be the real anomaly in this particular situation, which occurred to me while pondering the Bill. I should not be surprised to find that some supporter of a specialist minority cause—proportional representation springs to mind, but there are others—stands at a general election in a large number of constituencies so that although he could not, in any circumstances, expect to be elected for any one of those constituencies, he might assemble enough votes over a large number of constituencies to claim that, in aggregate, he should have been elected. That would be quite an argument. But, of course, the correction of that anomaly, which is genuine, is not possible under this Bill. Other legislation would be needed for that.

I return to the main argument. It may be said that the so-called "dual management" is allowed in that a person can serve in both Westminster and the European Parliament. I understand that the Labour Party dislikes people serving in both Westminster and the European Parliament and puts its own Members under great pressure in that respect. So that is not an argument which Ministers are likely to advance but in any case, that is a wholly different matter.

However, it is significant that neither Ministers nor anyone else is suggesting that people from any other member state of the European Union except Ireland should he able to stand in the two different member states' parliaments. This proposal is special to Ireland alone.

So who wants it? I have no evidence—and the Minister has produced none—that any English, Welsh or Scottish MP wants to sit at the same time for an Irish constituency in the Irish Parliament. Ulster Unionist MPs are unlikely to want to sit in the Dail and even if they wished to do so, they would be unlikely to be elected because, as we know, Protestants have been substantially eased out of the country since the Republic was formed.

The SDLP or even Alliance Members might conceivably be elected for two constituencies in the two countries but, frankly, I do not think that it is their style to try that kind of trick.

On the other hand it is exactly what members of Sinn Fein want. One of the very few people to welcome this legislation when it was first proposed was Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, who said it was a "significant move" and "a breakthrough" and things like that. Of course, members of Sinn Fein would love to stand for a constituency in the Republic and for another in Northern Ireland. They would not, of course, take their seats in Westminster. They do not do so. They refuse to take their seats because t would mean that they must recognise the legitimacy of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, they would sit in the Dail and then claim to represent part of the United Kingdom there, as well as the constituency for which they were elected within the Republic. That claim would be made easier by the fact that because of Ireland's proportional representation system, under which four or five Members represent each of the constituencies, they would share the representation of a large constituency in the Dail but be the sole representative of the constituency in the United Kingdom for which they were elected.

I am told by Northern Ireland sources that that is exactly the point of the Bill. I am further told that Mr Pat Doherty is suggested as the first candidate; that he wants to stand in West Tyrone in the United Kingdom and, subsequently, in Donegal in the Republic for a seat in the Dail. In that way, he hopes to be able to claim to represent West Tyrone in the Dail and that, I think, would be a very grave matter indeed.

But I do not doubt that if we were to agree to this Bill, it would not be long before Mr Adams and, for that matter, Mr Martin McGuinness and others no doubt, were looking for seats in the Republic so that they could claim to represent West Belfast and Mid Ulster, and wherever else, in the Dail.

At present it is said in Sinn Fein propaganda, although not by Mr Adams himself, as far as I know, that its members do not wish to do that. But I do not think that it would be long before they would see the advantages to them and their propaganda of so doing. That prospect appals me as a negation of democracy and of national sovereignty. It was no part of the. Good Friday agreement, which is otherwise regarded by the Government as virtually Holy Writ. But in this case, it seems to me that it runs flat counter to the recognition of the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland to decide in which country they wish to live and it cuts right across the new all-Ireland institutions which were set up by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. They are flourishing at present or, at least, are in action at present and doing their best to flourish as much as they can.

What about the second question: why are the Government proposing this measure to Parliament? The Prime Minister sometimes displays a naivety about Irish matters which can seem appealing from time to time, if you are sufficiently distant from them. On the other hand, the Taoiseach is a shrewd polit ician and negotiator. The Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, is renowned for very careful thought and calculation in all that he does. I cannot believe that he has not realised the effect of passing this measure.

Perhaps there is a secret plan to ease Northern Ireland gradually into the Republic through this form of back door. If so, are the British Government a party to it or are they just being näive? I do not know the answer to that question. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord who is to respond to the debate does not know the answer either, at least at present. I do not blame him. As I understand it, he has picked up the brief comparatively recently and is obviously relying on his instructions. I do not suppose that he was involved in the decisions on the Bill last December. In some respects, it would be surprising if he had been able to give it much thought in the past week or two. If I were in his shoes I would be thinking a little more about the Dome. If this was a defence case that he had been asked to put forward in court, I suspect that he would have suggested to his client that he plead guilty and have done with it.

As I said, I do not know the answer to the question. However, throughout the proceedings today and at later stages, we shall do our best to tease it out. I do not see why the Government should want to permit what seems to me to be a constitutional outrage. Even if the Government wish, I do not see why Parliament should agree to it. Apart from anything else, if we were to do so it would betray the Good Friday agreement and would set a bomb under our democracy.

Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name in this grouping is a rather different, specialist amendment. It suggests that if somebody who sits for a United Kingdom seat should later find himself elected also to the Dail, he should submit himself to a by-election in his United Kingdom constituency to confirm his membership of the United Kingdom Parliament with his constituents before taking up his seat in the Dail.

It is sometimes said that anything is possible in this country, provided it has been done before. It is also said that there is a precedent for everything and that therefore everything is possible. There is a sort of precedent here. I refer to the 19th century practice under which a Member of Parliament who was appointed a Minister had to return to his constituency on appointment and have his membership confirmed by a by-election. The constitutional theory behind that was that appointment as a Minister would affect his ability to represent his constituents. They therefore had a right to confirm or withhold his right to be their representative. That is an excellent constitutional doctrine. However, it fell foul of the fact that it narrowed the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint the best possible Ministers to the government. For that reason, it was dropped. I do not propose its resuscitation. However, I believe that for this Bill it would be a highly relevant procedure to put in place.

The individuals concerned, who would represent two different constituencies in two different sovereign parliaments, would have two completely separate sets of loyalties, both to two lots of constituents and, indeed, to two sovereign states. In those circumstances, it is only reasonable that the constituents of the individual as a United Kingdom Member of Parliament should have the opportunity to confirm his or her position in that respect before the individual takes up the other appointment. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, somewhat spoilt the first half of his speech by speaking to his amendment. Unlike the constraint proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the amendment is a mild constraint on what the Bill attempts to do. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, proposes that a person cannot sit in the Dail and the House of Commons at the same time. However, all that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seems to be asking is that if he or she does so, that person would have to submit to a by-election. That sounds absolutely fine; it is an exemplary measure. Perhaps the Government should think of accepting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It would be a nice discipline.

The noble Lord referred to the qualification of citizens of other countries which are members of the European Union to contest election to the House of Commons. At present they are not allowed to do so. However, that may be a violation of a statute or acquis communautaire in the European Union. One should not be able to prevent a citizen of another European country standing for election to the House of Commons. I should like to know whether or not that is the case. I know that it is possible to stand for the European Parliament from any country within the European Union. I do not know whether there is any legal provision not in violation of the European—

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The position is that one cannot stand to be a member of a European Union legislature and the House of Commons. The question raised is interesting. The front of the Bill contains the declaration that its provisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the European convention. However, on the face of it, one would have thought the provision discriminatory.

I thank the noble Lord. He has made my point for me. It cannot be the case that we can prevent citizens of France, Belgium or anywhere else standing for election to the House of Commons and being a member of another parliament and this Parliament. It may be illegal to represent two constituencies within the United Kingdom in the House of Commons. However, there cannot be a rule against someone representing two different constituencies in two different countries in two different parliaments, so long as the electorate agrees. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

I believe that the right way to proceed on this matter is not to say that exception is made for Ireland but that exception is made for all members of the EU. The whole problem would then be resolved.

As always, I am most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Desai. During my short time in this place I can think of no intervention that he has made to which I have not listened with both interest and amusement, let alone profit to my own knowledge. However, I find it difficult—it gives me great pain to say this—to follow his remarks. I simply cannot agree with him. The noble Lord may remember that when some of her courtiers wanted to wear foreign decorations which they had been given, Queen Elizabeth I was heard to observe that she did not like her dogs to wear foreign collars. That is precisely what this Bill is about, and, indeed, what my noble friend Lord Lamont talks about in his amendment, which I enthusiastically support.

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe, as my noble friend Lord Lamont stated, that it is not possible for a Member of this sovereign Parliament to sit also as a member of another sovereign parliament of a country which is a member of the European Union. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, proved when he stood for an Italian Euro-constituency, it is possible for a citizen of this country to stand for election to the European Parliament for a constituency in another country which is a member of the European Union. As I understand it, the rationale—though it is questionable—is that the European Parliament is not a sovereign parliament and that this Parliament, perhaps by the skin of its teeth, still is.

I return to Queen Elizabeth I and the nub of my noble friend's amendment. For those of us who believe in the central position of Parliament in our national life—a position which is increasingly under threat for all sorts of reasons which need not detain us here—it becomes difficult to accept that dogs can wear two collars. Whatever the difference of opinion may be about the Oath (even a cursory reading of the extensive debates in another place on this Bill show this) and whatever the doubts about its present wording, nevertheless it constrains all those who swear it—Members of both Houses—under severe implied threat to devote themselves to the national interests of this country.

It is difficult to believe that the present law fulfils what I consider to be an overriding consideration. After all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out at Second Reading, Members of Commonwealth legislatures are allowed to sit in this Parliament. It is that fact which allowed the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading to make clear that he regarded this Bill as merely a tidying-up operation, setting right an anomaly which does not apply to the Republic of Ireland when it applies to the Commonwealth. I regard the provision which allows the Commonwealth dual mandate—to put it in shorthand—to be an anomaly in itself.

I was brought up in what might be thought of as an imperial household. I well remember, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, arguments as to whether it was right that colonial assumptions should persist in the modern world. With the increasing growth of independence among the countries of the former empire and the development of a Commonwealth which included many republics, particularly the example of India in 1947, should this imperial Parliament assume such a high degree of supremacy that, by implication, any other parliament was inferior? It was thought that there was not an equal mandate in both Parliaments. It was perhaps that assumption more than anything else at the time, which enabled us, with a sense of effortless superiority which was easier then than now, to assume that so inferior were other Commonwealth parliaments, that no equal dual mandate would be implied if one were a Member of a Commonwealth parliament and of this Parliament. I utterly reject such a suggestion.

It is only right and proper—I am perhaps trespassing into the territory of a later amendment but it is germane to the argument raised by the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading and which my noble friend is endeavouring to address in this amendment—to say that, just because the Commonwealth membership applies, therefore it should apply to everybody else. It seems to me, particularly now, that it is right for Commonwealth countries to be regarded as the equal of this Parliament; indeed, it is the essence of their status of independence that that should be so. Therefore, it is a relic of imperial days that this extraordinary anomaly should persist and the sooner it is put right, the better. I fail to see how the noble and learned Lord can use the argument he did at Second Reading and it is all the more sensible therefore for my noble friend to put forward his argument against the dual mandate.

We know that, even in this global world, which has become such a cliché in every political speech, nations still have different interests. Those nations which are fortunate enough to be governed by genuine parliamentary systems must be sure that their members have a clear interest in promoting the interests of their nation. If there is a dual mandate in those sovereign parliaments, there must be a question among members who are members of another Parliament as to where their true interests lie. It is entirely wrong, as a matter of principle, that this Bill should be put forward in this way.

I have already tried to draw a distinction between this Parliament and the European Parliament. It is right and proper that my noble friend should draw a distinction between this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Northern Ireland Assembly was created, at least in part, in a genuine effort to try to ensure that a settlement applied in Northern Ireland which enabled both the nationalist and the unionist traditions to co-exist and prosper together. That cannot be so here. At the risk of being invidious, we do not have to look far back—sub specie aeternitatis—in the history of the 20th century to see just how often other countries find themselves at odds with the interests of this country. A case in point is the Republic of Ireland.

I speak with huge affection for the Republic; my mother's family come from County Limerick so it would be surprising if I did not. But we have to remember that His Majesty King George VI's Ambassador to the Third Reich conveyed the sympathies of the Irish Government to the Third Reich on the death of the Führer in 1945. I hope that the arguments of those days are now water under the bridge, that we can forget them and look to the future. But that is the most glaring example, not very long ago and when this country was at its greatest moment of peril, when we find that the Republic of Ireland had a different agenda from our own. It is therefore peculiar, to say the least, for the Government to reject my noble friend's amendment.

It is only sensible, at the beginning of this Committee stage, for me to support my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Lamont, in their inquiries, in the gentlest of terms, as to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill. I worked my way, with a sense of mounting tedium, through the extensive Official Report records of the debates in another place. At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord—who always tries to help the House—had constraints put upon him. During the course of proceedings in another place, just as here, no information whatsoever was given about who had asked for this Bill, under what circumstances and why. The only hint that your Lordships' House was given was by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms who said that he had been told that this Bill was part of the choreography of the Belfast agreement. It was not part of the Bill but part of its choreography.

That hint demands an explanation from the Government. What is it all about? Our suspicions must be hugely increased by the extraordinary timetable of the progress, if that is the word, of this Bill through Parliament. There was the extraordinary passage of a Bill, which allegedly was not urgent, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's remarks during its course in another place. He actually said that this Bill was not urgent. Nevertheless, it was subjected to urgent procedures in another place. There was no week's delay between Second Reading and the remaining stages.

Despite the evident hurry back in January this year, there was then an extraordinary and pregnant pause between the Bill finishing in another place and appearing for Second Reading here. We did not see it until the end of the summer term at the end of July. It was explained to us by the Government Chief Whip that it would be helpful to produce it for Second Reading at the same time as he knew that Members of your Lordships' House who live in Northern Ireland would be here. I am sure that the Government Chief Whip thought that that was a good and sufficient reason. It is typical of him to want to be so helpful to your Lordships, particularly those who travel far to come here. None the less, it is perfectly extraordinary that other members of the Government asked the Chief Whip to make those kinds of excuses without giving us a straight answer. Given that in principle this Bill is doing utterly the wrong thing and is encapsulating a division of interest, it must be right—

Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he has seen the document entitled Sinn Fein Submission to the All-PartyOireachtas Committee on the Constitution, headed "Six County Representation in the Oireachtas". It argues that the traditional demand by the Northern Ireland nationalists has been for representation in the Dail. It refers to the fact that historically they had representation in the first and second Dail. It continues by explaining a number of different ways in which they could sit in the Dail. They argue that one "solution"—their word—might be that all 18 Members in the House of Commons could also sit in the Dail at the same time. Is it not extraordinary that the Government's proposals, for which no convincing explanation has been given, dovetail so well with what is in this document?

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He anticipated precisely what I was about to say. My noble friend Lord Cope set the matter out so clearly that I did not believe that repetition was necessary. However, my noble friend Lord Lamont has set it out even more clearly. I am familiar with the document to which he referred.

As my noble friend Lord Cope said, this Bill is a constitutional outrage. It is even more outrageous given the hole-in-the-corner way in which the Government have introduced it and the extraordinary way in which they have marshalled its passage through Parliament. There are also the rumours which have surrounded the dates for the remaining stages of the Bill during this spill-over period. The rumours I have heard have continued. As I understand it, the dates have changed almost continuously over the past few weeks, no doubt in order to accord with the tortuous negotiations which are no doubt going on behind the scenes between the various parties to the Good Friday agreement. It is a bad Bill, and that has been compounded by the way in which it has been handled. This Committee should be extremely grateful to my noble friend for this amendment, which I enthusiastically support.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the Committee and particularly for the two Front Benches in not for the first time having to disentangle a constitutional and political monstrosity such as this. As a Ulsterman I feel ashamed of the way in which this House has been treated, not for the first time, by the present occupants of the Northern Ireland Office by producing legislation which is indefensible by any standards and which, let us face it, defies common sense. We had an example only a few weeks ago in another piece of Northern Ireland Office-inspired legislation. But for the wisdom of the present Front Bench, and if we had subscribed to it in full, we would have brought the whole system of British democracy into disrepute.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, one of the mysteries is who asked for this Bill. I have never been able to discover the source of the pressure. There has never been an explanation. That is compounded by the timetabling to which the noble Viscount referred. The Bill appeared suddenly in the other place at the very end of January. It then went into hibernation until, as the noble Viscount said, literally the last few hours of this House sitting before the Summer Recess. The Bill then disappeared yet again. No more was heard of it. Hints were dropped that no one was very enthusiastic about it. I do not blame them for that when one considers all the pitfalls. It was thought that the Bill might not be heard of again.

Now for no apparent reason it has been exhumed yet again and we are invited to give it a final polishing. The pressure which has been applied and the way in which Her Majesty's Government have been forced to surrender to it has meant that we are all in the ridiculous position of soiling our hands with something which is indefensible. I wonder whether it is correct that the Bill puts Irish representatives on the same footing as representatives of legislatures in the Commonwealth. The Bill is by no means clear. In fact contradiction is piled on contradiction in that field.

There is also contradiction in some of the phrases used such as "elected to" the House of Commons or to the Irish Parliament. There is another contradiction as regards taking seats in the other place. It is all very well to he elected but it is a different matter to take one's seat holding the views shared by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness. Where is the explanation, the dividing line and the criteria between someone being elected, which is a comparatively simple operation in many ways? One can pick a constituency with a large majority in accordance with one's own views, which is very different from taking one's seat if the person elected knows very well that those who voted for him or her would certainly not approve of his actions. All these matters need to be sorted out if we are not to have yet another unworkable, indefensible piece of legislation on the statute book.

Finally, I wish to make a point which was made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It was not made in any sense of antagonism. For as long as 30 years, I have had occasion to consult with our friends in the Irish Republic. However, we must face the fact that they are working to their own agenda simply because they are responsible to an entirely different electorate. It is not a British electorate. As perhaps an accidental election looms over the horizon, they will be more sensitive to a suggestion that they are co-operating with the "hated Brits". That is the kind of language to which they resort as polling day draws near.

With all due respect to them, and making allowances for their problems, it is a great mistake to fool ourselves into believing that they look on all such matters in a broad-minded way, as we in this House tend to do.

Before speaking to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points and ask one question. First, I understand that the Disqualifications Bill works as follows. Someone is elected, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux said, that is fine. The issue of qualification arises when, having been elected, the person wants to enter the House to take his seat. I cannot see how the Government could resist the amendment because one of the qualifications is that a Member should not support terrorism. The 1981 Act made it clear that it is a disqualification to do so. That would inevitably apply to the members of Sinn Fein who might want to enter. Therefore, it is a fairly empty procedure to get elected and then not be able to take one's seat.

Not only that, but after representations had been made that Gerry Adams should be allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons he was asked whether he could see himself doing so were the Oath to be changed—for instance, with reference to the Crown removed. He replied,

"No, because the issue for us is the claim of that Parliament to jurisdiction in Northern Ireland".

So even if they were not disqualified by their connections to terrorism, they would still not be prepared to take the Oath. Therefore, the procedure is empty.

The people who would be qualified would be Members from any other party in the Dail; but when asked whether the other parties had been consulted all that the Minister in the other place was able to say was that this Government had talked to the Irish Government and they supposed that that reflected the view of some of the political parties. That was hardly a detailed answer.

My second point is that there is an inherent impossibility as regards the human rights issue. When Martin McGuinness went to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that it was unjust that he had been excluded from sitting here because he would not take the Oath, the court clearly ruled that this Government were acting entirely within their rights. When he said that he was being refused entry because he refused to take the Oath, the court found that that need not prevent him entertaining his republican views, but that the rights also extended to the right of the state to protect effective democracy. The Oath requirement can be considered a reasonable condition attaching to elected office, having regard to the constitutional system of the respondent state. It also said that it must extend human rights to the protection of constitutional principles which underpin a democracy. The court also pointed out that the electors, in voting for him, full well knew that he would not take the Oath and therefore would not be able to take his seat. We are therefore looking at yet another travesty because it is manifest that members of Sinn Fein, if elected, would not take the Oath, and therefore would never take their seats, and that the others are not interested.

Finally, I do not believe that it is clearly enough understood that those who are electing such people would themselves have their rights taken away. I should like to know whether there is a single example of an existing Member of a Commonwealth legislature solemnly coming to the United Kingdom, putting himself up for election and being elected. I do not know of any such case and I shall be interested to be told whether there has been one.

If it has not happened, once more this Bill is perfectly ridiculous because it is wholly unlikely that someone is going to come all the way from Australia or Tonga, go to Lewisham and say, "I thought that I would like to enter the House of Commons". I cannot understand why the legislation still exists, but to use it and say solemnly that this wonderful right, which has so freely been exercised by members of the Commonwealth, should be now extended to those in Dublin because we are friends is absolute nonsense.

Of all the legislation I have seen pass through both Houses during my 35 years as a Member, this is the most confusing. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in his journey through history because I have a little history in relation to the Bill.

Unfortunately, I was called away when the Bill received its Second Reading in this House. I therefore had to depend on the reports of that debate and those in the other place. The more I read, the more alarmed I became. I believe that there is something happening which I do not understand and, what is more, which I am not meant to understand.

When both the week after Second Reading and last week I went to Ireland, I contacted all my friends in the Irish Parliament; in Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, the two major parties, and in the Democratic Left. I asked whether any of them put forward the idea of serving in both parliaments. The members of Fianna Fail to whom I spoke were very cagey about it. Those of Fine Gael were very annoyed about it. Those of the Democratic Left laughed about it and I shall illustrate why in a moment.

I said to members of those three parties that when they read the Irish newspapers—particularly the Irish Times and the Belfast newspapers—they can see the government of the Republic of Ireland expressing opinions every day of the week, and sometimes every hour of the day, in relation to what is happening in Northern Ireland. I asked my Dublin contacts why it is that no member of the government or opposition there has seen it right to express an opinion on the legislation. I should be very happy to hear a member of the government of Fianna Fail, or even a Fianna Fail TD, or the leader of the opposition, Fine Gael, or one of their members, standing up in the Dail saying, "We made representations for this legislation and we fully support it". But why the silence? That is why I say that there seems to be something sinister about the legislation. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who said that it seems to be particularly designed to please Sinn Fein, the political party in Northern Ireland. I read the debates in the House of Commons. No member of the SDLP was present to vote for this legislation. One would have thought that if its members had contemplated having a dual mandate they would have been there, but they were not. It is hard to understand why the Labour Government seek to push through this legislation.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, took us on a jaunt through history. I offer another which is very pertinent to a Labour government and my own socialist beliefs. In 1948 Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth. Under the then premiership of Mr Costello and the Minister of External Affairs, Sean MacBride, the Irish Republic, as it became known, was taken out of the Commonwealth. That withdrawal was followed by the Government of Ireland Act 1949 which had a disastrous effect on politics in Northern Ireland. I was there at the time that it happened and I witnessed it with a broken heart.

When Ireland was partitioned in 1920 both sides went into their trenches. The only people who did not do so were members of the trade union movement and the Labour Party. They saw it as their function to put aside the emerging border politics and represent workers, whether they be Catholic or Protestant or of no religion at all. Once the Labour government put the Government of Ireland Act on the statute book it created what James Connolly had predicted in 1910 when the first rumblings of partition began to be heard. He said that if Ireland was partitioned it would bring about a carnival of reaction among the working class, because pro-border and anti-border Protestant and Catholics would be set against one another. That was exactly what happened when Ireland withdrew from the Commonwealth, and the Government of Ireland Act 1949 was introduced. It wrecked the Labour movement in Northern Ireland at that time and caused great division among the trade union movement. The Labour and trade union movement had tried its best to avoid border politics but the Government of Ireland Act 1949 pitched it right into the middle of it.

I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I watched that happen. After 1949 there were two, if not three, Labour parties: the Northern Ireland Labour Party which was in favour of the present border; the Irish Labour Party which was against the border; and the Republican Labour Party which was opposed to the border. The whole Labour movement was torn asunder because of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the subsequent introduction of the Government of Ireland Act 1949. That is why there is today no Labour party as such in the six counties of Northern Ireland.

The Social Democratic and Labour Party has another agenda. That party, which freely admits that it is a constitutional nationalist party, was created by the antecedents of the Government of Ireland Act. One cannot join any Labour party in Northern Ireland today without having political division on the border as a result of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, began by referring to Queen Elizabeth I and, half-way through, the Commonwealth. That was the most important lesson that I learnt because of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, drew an imaginary picture of what would happen if one put one's name down for a number of constituencies. Is it possible for such a scenario to arise? That was what happened in Northern Ireland in the Assembly elections. Every candidate who put his name on a nomination paper for a seat in the Assembly hoped to get votes from all over the six county areas and the constituencies. It was the aggregation of votes for candidates representing different parties which enabled them to take seats. For that reason, there are two Sinn Fein Ministers. At the end of the election Sinn Fein was able to say that it had received so many thousand votes; the Alliance Party, which came behind it, said that it had received so many thousand votes and was entitled to two seats. That is a very bad way to run elections; and sometimes the results can be very disappointing.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that Sinn Fein has already decided to put forward a candidate who will be elected to a Northern Ireland constituency and will then fight a cross-border constituency—Donegal, Louth or Monaghan—in which case it will be able to say that its candidates represent areas North and South of the border. That would give it a good fillip. It would be very bad news for the SDLP, and even worse news for the government of the Republic. In that scenario, when candidates stand on that kind of ticket, backed up by this legislation, it is quite possible for them to win seats in the Republic. The emotional impact of one candidate standing for a dual mandate—a seat in the Republic and a seat here—could be tremendous. If it happened in three or four constituencies Sinn Fein could be part of a coalition government in the Republic after the next election. Therefore, Sinn Fein has an agenda. Speaking as a Labour man all my life, it is unfortunate that that agenda has been helped along by a Labour Government. They are pushing ahead according to a Sinn Fein agenda to the total exclusion of every other political party in the Republic of Ireland. None of them wants to see this legislation.

I read the replies of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He did not appear to convince anybody, certainly not me, of the necessity for this legislation. People in Northern Ireland are convinced that this is another concession to Sinn Fein. We have seen what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past month. Murders by Sinn Fein and loyalists take place every day. Four so-called loyalists were murdered last week. Sinn Fein murdered a member of what is called the Real IRA. I find it hard to put that into words. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that it is still associated with Sinn Fein. It is not right for any government to help that political party.

As in the case of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, opinions voiced on this Bill in this House will be analysed. Most of the people who speak against the Bill will be depicted in Northern Ireland as unionists or Protestants. I could be classified as associating myself with them and making anti-Irish comments. Let me make it clear, again and again if necessary: I am not a unionist. I have fought unionism all my political life in Northern Ireland. I am certainly not anti-Irish. But that is the way that some of these remarks will be taken when this debate is reported.

Can the noble and learned Lord get someone to ring up the Taoiseach—I understand he was in Leeds last night—and say to him, "For God's sake, will you issue a statement saying that you support this legislation?"; or do the same thing with Fine Gael, and say, "Please, please, I am in difficulty here. Everyone is pounding hell out of me in the House of Lords. So will you say something that will justify our enacting this legislation?"? I would then be prepared to believe that there is some validity for the Bill. At the moment I do not believe that that is so.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that,

"surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament".—[Official Report, 27/7/00; col. 721.]

Having listened to the debate today, I should like to invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who, I believe, will reply for the Government, to extend a modest courtesy to this Parliament and reply to the question that has repeatedly been asked, both in this House and in another place; who has asked for this Bill? It is a very important question because so far we have heard that there is only one political party whose programme would be furthered were the Bill to be enacted. That is Sinn Fein. It is essential to be told whether anyone else has asked for the Bill and, if they have, when and in what circumstances?

Another modest courtesy would be for the Minister to say why the Bill has been brought forward. I need not repeat—the hour is getting on—the extraordinary timetable that has been followed, both in the other place and in this House. Why was it brought forward? Why has this timetable applied? We are told that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement; it is consistent with it. The Good Friday agreement was argued over for an enormously long time, and represents, I say again, a great achievement for all those who participated in it. But it is extraordinary that this Bill, which is a substantial constitutional measure, should be brought forward in circumstances when it was not contemplated apparently by those who participated in the Good Friday agreement. I very much hope that there will be answers now to these questions.

In effect this has been another Second Reading debate in relation to the Bill. Two questions have run through the whole short debate. First, why are we having this Bill? Secondly, who asked for the Bill? As to why are we having the Bill, without going into the matter at any length—speakers in the debate have revealed an understanding of the legal position—it is the case that at the moment, before the Bill is enacted, members of all other foreign parliaments are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and of the Northern Irish Assembly unless the foreign parliament is a Commonwealth parliament. Equally, in relation to voting in parliamentary elections, one cannot vote in a British parliamentary election unless one is a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen. Equally, one is qualified to take one's seat in the UK Parliament only if one is a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen.

Therefore, with regard to voting and the right to sit in Parliament, Commonwealth, Ireland and UK citizens are treated as one. As to disqualification from membership of the UK Parliament, where one is also a member of another parliament, the UK Parliament and Commonwealth parliaments are treated as one but the Republic of Ireland parliament is treated separately. So at the moment there are two separate anomalies in our law. First, the Republic of Ireland parliament is not treated the same as Commonwealth parliaments for the purpose of dual membership. Yet the Republic is treated the same when it comes to voting in British general elections and when it comes to the right to take up one's seat in the UK Parliament. That is not talking about dual membership but the right to vote and the right to take your seat.

I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has given the technical position which all Members of the Committee accept. This may be an unusual question. Does the Minister think that it is right that the Commonwealth position should be as it is?

That is the position as it is. There is no proposal to change the position, either in relation to the dual mandate issue, so far as concerns Commonwealth parliaments, nor in the right of the Republic of Ireland's citizens either to vote or become Members in the United Kingdom. So that is what the position is. That being the— Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, I do not think he answered the question from my noble friend Lord Cranborne. But in any case does he know of any example when the ability of members of Commonwealth parliaments to sit in the House of Commons has ever been exercised? I have gone to some trouble to find out. I put down a Parliamentary Question. The Home Office did not know. I asked the House of Lords Library. It has been through such information as is available to it. It has no record of the right ever having been used. It consulted the House of Commons Library, which consulted bodies outside. This great ability of members of Commonwealth parliaments that the Minister talks about, with which we have somehow to bring ourselves together, is completely empty. It has never ever been used in history. What is more, it is never likely to be used.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I have posed the question and no one has been able to tell me of any occasion on which a member of a Commonwealth parliament has also sought to sit in the House of Commons. Therefore, I am not in a position to gainsay what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says in that respect. But it should be remembered that there are two aspects to this issue. It is not just the dual mandate issue. There is also the right of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in UK parliamentary elections and their right to take seats separately from the dual mandate issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not true that to gain a vote in this country— whether one is a UK citizen, a citizen of the Irish Republic or a citizen of a Commonwealth country—one has to be a resident?

I think that is right. But a resident's right to vote would not apply to people except in the categories I have indicated; namely, Republic of Ireland, Commonwealth and British citizens. So, yes, I think there is a residency requirement. I shall check, but I think that there is. That does not give one a right either to vote or stand in the UK Parliament elections unless one is also a member of one of the three groups I have indicated

We are in Committee, so I do not apologise too much for interrupting yet again. As I understand the matter, the noble and learned Lord is seeking a kind of geometrical or symmetrical argument in saying that what applies to electors should apply to representatives. If one has a vote, one should be able to sit in Parliament. Surely, the responsibilities of being an elector and of being a representative are entirely different here. Therefore the analogy fails to carry any force.

With respect, no, because I am seeking to draw attention to the fact that, in relation to who can vote and who can sit in the UK Parliament, the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom are treated as one. Should not the position be the same when it comes to the issue of dual mandate? That is the basis on which, as a matter of form and substance, we approach the issue.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether it is right that citizens of the UK, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland should all be allowed to vote and sit. No one suggests that there is anything wrong with that approach. In relation to the dual mandate issue, which is separate, the noble Viscount put forward an elegant historical argument based in part on dinner time discussions in the Cecil family. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, put forward arguments in that respect. But the position is as it is; and there is very much to be said for the position being consistent.

That is particularly so when the position is, as I believe that it is, that our relations with the Republic of Ireland are good. Following the Belfast agreement, they have been strengthened by four new British/Irish treaties; and they have been strengthened by the changes in the Irish constitution to reflect agreement on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and by new institutions to develop further British/Irish co-operation. So, in the context of a good relationship with the Republic of Ireland—a relationship that has never been better—it is appropriate that these changes be made to provide consistency in the position. That is why we think it appropriate to introduce changes.

Perhaps I may respond to the second point that was made: who asked for it? I am not sure that that is an appropriate question to ask in relation to legislation.

Oh!

Surely it is for the promoter of legislation—that is usually the Government, but it could equally be a private Member—to say, "We think that this is appropriate legislation to promote"; and it is then for Parliament to decide whether it agrees or disagrees with the promoter of the legislation.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect to him, I really do think that his last answer is beyond caricature and so I shall not dignify it by saying anything else. But his argument about good relations between the Republic and the United Kingdom is a little curious. If good relations is a criterion for dual mandates, should we not also be negotiating with the United States on similar terms?

No, because the United States is not in the same position as the Republic of Ireland. The moment the noble Viscount begins to identify countries that are not among the countries that are treated differently—Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland—different questions arise which could not possibly be resolved by a Bill of this kind. No basis is established by previous legislation that would justify such an approach.

Those are my answers to the two questions that have flowed through the debate. I accept that these are very, very serious issues which require important consideration. Between Committee and Report I am more than happy to meet noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux—to discuss them.

Is the noble and learned Lord really saying that one fine day the Prime Minister woke up and thought what an interesting idea this would be and then failed to consult anyone but the Taoiseach and Sinn Fein? It sounds a very curious way of initiating legislation.

I invite the noble and learned Lord to explain the extraordinary stop-and-start nature of the progress of the legislation through both Houses.

Perhaps I may deal, first, with the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I have sought to set out the justification for the Bill: why we are proceeding with the Bill and what its merits are. It is a matter for both Houses of Parliament to decide whether they agree or disagree with the merits of the Bill, just as it is for them to decide in relation to any Bill placed before them whether by a private Member, the Opposition or the Government. The points being made along the lines of "We do not know who asked for it" should not distract one from identifying whether a particular House of Parliament agrees or disagrees with the Bill; and, with the greatest respect, in Committee we discuss the detail of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the progress of the legislation. The Bill went through the House of Commons in January. The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in February, until May. No steps were taken to further the Bill at that time because of the suspension of the Assembly. The Bill was then placed in the timetable of your Lordships' House on a date which the Chief Whip—I know noble Lords will accept this—thought would be convenient for Members of your Lordships' House who come from Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, looks surprised by that, but I can tell him that that was the reason why the date was chosen. It was known that another Bill concerning Northern Ireland was due to be debated on the same date and it was thought that it would be convenient and helpful for Northern Ireland Members of your Lordships' House if this Bill also was dealt with on that date. That is why the present timetable has been followed. I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to accept that that was why 27th July was chosen.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Even though this is Committee stage, perhaps I may say that he has been very generous in giving way. I always accept what the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms says, and anyone who knows him will also accept it. Therefore, as we must accept that, I wonder how the noble and learned Lord would interpret the words of the Government Chief Whip on 27th July that the Bill was part of the "choreography"—I think that I quote him reasonably exactly—of the negotiations. Will the noble and learned Lord consider that point in the light of the intervention a few moments ago of my noble friend Lady Park?

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also explain why the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly should suddenly have made the Bill inoperable? Would it not be just as effective with the Assembly suspended unless the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly had in some way affected the choreography of the Good Friday agreement and relations with the government of the Irish Republic?

In answer to the noble Viscount's question, the choreography point is, as I hope that I have indicated in the course of my remarks, part of the reason for bring the three groups into line—the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland; it is because of the deepening and improving relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, in part as a result of the Belfast agreement. It is something that arises out of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked why, the Assembly having been suspended, the Bill did not then go through its normal parliamentary stages. Plainly, with the Assembly suspended, it would have been insensitive—there were particular sensitivities applying at the time—for the Bill to be pursued at that particular time.

Those are the answers to the question "Why?" and those are the answers to the question "Who wants it?". In relation to—

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is moving on from the questions that he was asked. He indicated that he was not sure whether it was appropriate to ask the question: who has asked for the Bill? Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, I wonder whether I may help him to resolve that question. When considering legislation, is it not generally rather wise to know whether certain people will be pleased and certain people displeased by it? The noble and learned Lord knows well enough those who will be displeased by it. Surely it is relevant to ask the question: who will be pleased by it and, therefore, who—if anyone—has asked for it? It is this point which, I venture to suggest, makes my question appropriate.

Before my noble and learned friend replies, perhaps I may say to him that I, too, have been thinking along these lines. My noble and learned friend has not answered the question of whether any of the major political parties in the Republic have asked for this measure. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the other side of that question: did he ask any of the major political parties in the Republic what they thought of the Bill, or did he not ask for their opinions because he might not have been happy with the answers he would have received?

I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking out of turn. Perhaps I may quote a short poem which I believe might be helpful to the noble and learned Lord:

"As I was going up the stair,

I met a man who wasn't there.

He wasn't there the other day,

I wish that man would go away".

I believe that I have already given my answer to the question of who might have asked for the Bill. It is for the Government to decide, in the light of their consultations, whether a Bill is appropriate. We should remember, too, that this Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons in January of this year. We have now reached November and therefore 11 months have been allowed for views to be sought. I do not think that any doubt exists as regards the majority of people's views in relation to the Bill. Plenty of scope has been given for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, however, surely it must be for the two Houses of Parliament to decide what they think of the Bill. They must form their views not on the matters that surround the Bill, but on the merits of the Bill itself.

Perhaps I may turn to a number of other matters. First, as regards the specific question put to me on the position of Mr Seamus Mallon. Mr Mallon did not sit as a Member of the Irish Senate and the House of Commons at the same time. He had resigned from the Senate before his election to the House of Commons. Currently, it is not possible to sit in both the Senate and the House of Commons. However, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it is possible to be a Member of the Irish Senate and a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Secondly, perhaps I may deal with the specific amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The effect of his amendment would be that in the circumstances of a dual mandate with the House of Commons and either the Dail or a Commonwealth legislature, it would be necessary to resign one's seat and to be re-elected. Requiring a Member of the House of Commons to resign and submit to re-election if that Member sought to be elected to the Irish or a Commonwealth legislature would, in effect, impose a new restriction on Commonwealth citizens that we do not feel would be sensible.

It has been suggested during the course of the debate that one individual cannot properly carry out his duties in more than one legislature; namely, that this would be to the detriment of all his constituents. That proposition goes much further than is considered appropriate in respect of dual membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the devolved administrations, where there are no such restrictions. As Members of the Committee know, individuals can and do hold seats in two or even—under certain circumstances—three of these legislatures.

Under all the circumstances, I would ask noble Lords to consider carefully the arguments in favour of the clause. I earnestly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

I should like, first, to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; namely, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, my noble friend on the Front Bench and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Park.

I have to say that I have not found the Minister's responses to be remotely convincing. He has been extremely economical with his answers. I do not imply the phrase, "economical with the truth", but rather that he has been, quite literally, economical. He has confined himself to certain very narrow technical points and has not offered a political explanation of the clause. He has not put it into any form of political context that makes sense.

I recall a famous story about Lloyd George. He was travelling in a car in Snowdonia and became lost. He pulled down his window and asked a passer-by where he was. The passer-by replied, "You are in Snowdonia". This incident was later often cited by Lloyd George as an example of a perfect parliamentary answer: it was short, brief, true and told no one anything of any use whatsoever. I am bound to say that I think that the noble and learned Lord is something of a master at that kind of response. In some of the debates which we have had on the Dome, the noble and learned Lord has given us responses that have been wholly accurate but not very helpful. On one occasion, I recall that I asked him directly whether he could tell us what has gone wrong with the Dome. The answer came back that, "There haven't been enough visitors". That, of course, was absolutely true. However, I am beginning to recognise a "Falconerism" when I hear one. All that we have had today are "Falconerisms": technical, factual and straight answers that do not explain anything. For that reason, I think that his speech was unconvincing.

The grounds on which he has chosen to defend the Bill are different from those on which he defended it previously, or at least his arguments have been put in a very different way. I do not think that the phrase "administrative tidying up" escaped his lips quite as frequently as it did during our previous debates. We were then led to believe that this was a matter only of tidying up. Nevertheless, it is true that we have heard a number of remarks along those lines today. Indeed, when my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pressed the Minister on this, he confirmed that this Bill did seek to tidy up an anomaly. In a technical sense we may be tidying up a legislative anomaly, but there are hundreds, not to mention thousands, of legislative anomalies c n which we could spend time in an exercise of tidying up. The question is: why has this anomaly been singled out? There must be a purpose and a political reason for the exercise. Indeed, surely it would not be sensible to tidy up an anomaly until that anomaly had proved to be a problem or until someone said, "The law here presents an obstacle to what I want to do".

The noble and learned Lord has relied on the precedent or the Commonwealth. However, he has not been able to come up with a single example of a Commonwealth Member of Parliament who has wanted to sit in the House of Commons. However, in order to provide for Ireland the same privilege—of which no one has ever availed themselves—we have to have the Bill. Moreover, we have not been told who in Ireland wants to avail themselves of this opportunity by tidying up the anomaly.

In our debate at Second Reading, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord mentioned Sinn Fein. Perhaps it is rather vulgar to wave documents in the Chamber, but I did show the document in my possession in which Sinn Fein has advocated something that fits in well with this proposal. Sinn Fein wants Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies elected to the House of Commons also to be Members of the Dail in order, I submit, that the Parliaments of Westminster and Dublin may appear equally legitimate and equidistant from the problems of Northern Ireland.

We know who does not want the Bill. I know that the First Minister does not want it. He has told me that. I should have thought that that was quite a relevant consideration, given the delicate situation which pertains and the problems that he has to face. I know, too, from the document which I have just mentioned, that Sinn Fein does want it. The noble and learned Lord sought to justify what is being proposed on the ground that citizens of Ireland could vote in British parliamentary elections. He then sought to try to establish some symmetry between being able to vote in a parliamentary election and being able to stand for that parliament. However, I think that that argument was thoroughly demolished by my noble friend Lord Elton when he intervened to point out simply that the responsibilities of a voter are completely different from those of a representative.

Symmetry can be extended in many directions. If all we seek is symmetry, why has not the noble and learned Lord brought forward legislation to allow Members of the House of Commons to be elected to the Dail? That would further extend the symmetry being sought here. However, at present, a Member of the House of Commons cannot stand for election to the Dail unless he happens to be an Irish citizen. Only Irish citizens are eligible to stand for membership of the Dail.

Many of us object to this proposal because of the nonsense of someone being a representative in two sovereign parliaments. Of course Members of Parliament represent their constituents, but they are also there to further the interests of their country. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne pointed out, there may be times when the interests of the two countries conflict—not, I am sure, as dramatically as in the example given by my noble friend, but I can think of many examples in the field of taxation and cross-border matters where very different views probably would be taken by members of a British government and members of an Irish government. One would want a Member of Parliament to be free from undue and improper pressure, but certainly there would be a conflict of interest in some of those matters.

I have listened extremely carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, but we have to follow the logic of our arguments. My judgment is that our arguments went unanswered. Despite the pleas of the noble and learned Lord, I propose to seek to divide the House. I do so consciously because it is an important matter and the arguments put against the amendment were profoundly unconvincing.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my honourable friend Elliot Morley. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the serious flooding that has occurred in England.

"I start by expressing the Government's heartfelt sympathy to all affected. Some houses have been flooded several times in the past few weeks. The whole House can appreciate the desperation of those householders affected.

"We do not need to be reminded of the extraordinarily heavy rains that have fallen in recent weeks—and are still falling as I speak. This is an extreme situation. The land is saturated; water is running straight off into already swollen rivers.

"Floods on this scale are rare. For example, river levels in York are the highest they have been for 400 years. The 1947 flood was the last event of a comparable scale. It was caused by a combination of heavy rain and melting snow and resulted in significant economic damage, but direct comparisons are difficult since there has been much development in the flood plain since then and our defences are much better.

"Happily, and most importantly, we have no reports of people losing their lives in the floods. Of the some 1.8 million properties at risk of flooding, fewer than 4,000 have flooded. Much of the extensive flooding we have seen has been of agricultural land.

"I believe that most flood defences for urban areas have operated to their design standard or better; this includes York, which is being severely tested. This demonstrates the justification for the significant government expenditure over the years. As the House will be aware, there is further rain to come and the prospect of more flooding cannot be ruled out. I will return to the question of funding for flood defences in a moment.

"I have to emphasise that we cannot stop all flooding, just reduce its risk. The recent floods have overwhelmed some defences. It would not have been practicable to have stopped them—it would have required massive walls which, even if they could have been constructed, and afforded, would be unlikely to be acceptable visually or environmentally. Shrewsbury turned down a flood defence scheme a few years ago on those very grounds.

"Having set out what has happened, I want to say what is being done in response. First, I pay tribute to the way in which the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, voluntary services and the Armed Forces have responded to the flooding. They have been working around the clock to ensure that warnings are issued and acted upon, to evacuate people and to shore up defences. I would also like to thank the local media and local radio for their contribution in ensuring that information has been widely and quickly made available. We have seen on television over the weekend the massive efforts being made to combat the floods in York. Similar efforts are going on up and down the country.

"The Government's impression is that these partnerships have worked well, and that flood warning arrangements have also been effective. As the House already knows, when the immediate work has been completed I shall be asking the Environment Agency, in conjunction with its partners, to produce a full report on the flooding, its effects, how the flood warning and emergency response worked, and what lessons we can learn. I shall ask for this speedily, but emphasise to the House that I do not want preparation of this report to get in the way of the immediate work that needs to be done. I ask for understanding on this point.

"My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister made an important government announcement about flooding at the weekend. He said the Government were improving the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities which incur unexpected costs in response to floods: assistance from Bellwin will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current floods; the rate of government support will increase from 85 per cent to 100 per cent; valid claims will be settled within 15 working days and claims for advance payments can be made. This announcement addresses important concerns that have been put to the Government. The scheme will also be reviewed more generally when the current flooding is over.

"The Government are also committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this, and deal also with problems of insurability for homes and businesses at risk of flooding. When the current problems are over, the Government, local authorities and other agencies will, of course, do everything they can in pursuing the recovery plan to help communities to get back to normal as soon as possible.

"I turn now to funding of flood and coastal defence. The total amount of spending on flood and coastal defence in England from all sources approaches £400 million this year. The Government are by far the largest contributor to this expenditure; in the current financial year, the Government planned to spend some £337 million in England. This is a combination of MAFF funding towards capital projects of some £80 million and £257 million delivered through the revenue support grant administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Revenue support grant is used, among other things, to pay levies to the Environment Agency which the agency uses to fund maintenance and operational costs for flood defences, and the balance of capital works not met by MAFF grant.

"The announcement on the spending review in July this year foresaw that MAFF funding would be increased by £5 million next year, £10 million the year after and £20 million the year after that. In all, MAFF funding was expected to total £267 million in the next three years. We would also expect revenue support grant funding to increase by about 4 per cent a year, in line with the spending review settlement in this area.

"Recognising the severity of the floods, I am sure the whole House will welcome my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a further £51 million over four years—starting this year—for: additional investment in flood defence works; new whole catchment area assessment studies; and making an earlier start to planned improvements in the flood warning system. This is new and additional money for England. Further discussions are in hand about the possibility of extra resources for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

"The further funding is particularly welcome. It will allow us to progress more river-based flood defence schemes. This an issue that the ministry needs to discuss with the Environment Agency. The Government do, however, expect to make an announcement on decisions as soon as possible.

"I ask the House to join me in expressing the Government's appreciation to all those who have been involved in responding to the flooding. I also ask the House to acknowledge the already major investment that the Government make in flood and coastal defence and to welcome the further funding that we are making available to ensure that the risks are reduced for current and future generations".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am sure that the whole House will join her in offering condolences to the families involved, some of whom have been struck twice, so quickly. It is not just a matter of flooding, which is bad enough in itself; unfortunately, on this occasion, sewage and other leakages have occurred, presenting an additional hazard with which people are having to cope. Like the Minister, I should also like to pay my tribute to the many—whether in the voluntary or in the regular services—who struggled to help to relieve the suffering of those families who have been struck for a second time, as well as those for whom it is a first-time experience.

When the Easter floods happened two years ago, especially in Northamptonshire, the Bye Report was published. Although the Minister did not refer to it, I know that that report made some recommendations that I believe have been a help in coping with the current situation. One of the difficulties experienced at that time was the fact that the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency did not act together as one. However, as the Minister pointed out, only 4,000 homes have been affected this time. Of course, that is a terrible number, but it might have been larger had there not been a united front in trying to cope with the current situation. Indeed, we are grateful for that.

The noble Baroness and I discussed a topical question a few weeks ago; namely, the whole question of building on low-lying areas. In response, the noble Baroness said that PPG 25 was in the process of consultation, and was due to be published in December of this year. In the light of that and bearing in mind what has happened again, can the Minister say whether the Government will be giving much closer direction to local authorities as regards consideration of future building in low-lying areas? I understand that the Environment Agency has maps on flood plain areas.

Obviously, one of the unfortunate considerations in this respect—indeed, the Minister referred to this when repeating the Statement—is the position of people regarding their future insurance. It is not just a question of their current insurance; it is a question of how they will manage, how they can get the money and whether they will be at a disadvantage in the future because they live in such areas. I believe that Hertfordshire and Ashford are particularly affected in that respect. The Government have planned to provide some 1.5 million new homes in the South and the South East. But sadly, as we know to our cost, that area is often subject to flooding. It is an important issue. I wonder whether the Government intend to reconsider that decision.

I support the Government and thank them for the immediate response that they have given through the Bellwin assistance scheme, which will help local authorities straightaway. One of the issues that local authorities often raise with me is the fact that such money is sometimes very slow in reaching them. Therefore, it is difficult for them to cope. I am very glad to note that such claims will be settled within 15 working days. It is most important that that pledge should be delivered.

The Minister mentioned that much of the affected area is farming land. Although our natural, heart-felt concern remains with the families involved, this situation has obviously affected the farming community. Can the Minister say whether any of the money in the existing funds has been allocated to help farming areas that have been subject to flooding? Will the Government be considering what will happen to the sowing of this year's crops, which will obviously be delayed? Indeed, will they be making representations to the European Commission in that respect?

I spoke briefly earlier about the question of new housing. In the past, I understand that the Environment Agency has given recommendations for housing projects to be turned down, but local authorities have over-ruled those objections. Of 190 applications that were made last year, I believe that some 44 per cent were built despite the fact that the agency suggested to the local authorities concerned that they should not be built. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that situation.

York has been mentioned as one of the areas that is direly affected by the floods. I may not be correct in this, but my understanding is that when the York defences were originally built they were meant to cope with 12 feet of flood water, but they have been deluged with 17.8 feet of water. Therefore, for very obvious reasons, when reports are made regarding the current situation, I hope that we shall anticipate higher standards of provision than has been the case in the past. Indeed, after the report is published, I wonder whether the Environment Agency and the Government will consider looking at some of the very good flood schemes that seem to be working; for example, the scheme in Boston, Lincolnshire, which is very low lying, is a case in point. It has not been affected by flooding because it has a very good sluice-gate mechanism on the river before it reaches Boston, with much drainage to support it. Perhaps the Government and the agency will consider favourably those areas with successful flood schemes.

I thank the Minister once again for repeating the Statement. Our hearts go out to all of those who have been affected. I hope that my questions will prove to be of some assistance.

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it falls to me to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and to respond to it. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if a wander a little beyond her immediate responsibilities. It is almost impossible to discuss this subject and keep all the issues together in one little box. Like the Minister, we on these Benches wish to express our sympathy with all the people whose homes, farms and businesses have been flooded in recent days—sometimes more than once. They have lost possessions, crops, business materials and the use of their homes, and now face a period of great uncertainty. Equally, everyone must be deeply impressed by the devotion and energy with which the emergency services, the armed services, the local authorities and government agencies have tackled their work of rescuing those who have had to leave their homes, shoring up flood defences and co-ordinating emergency work.

The Statement refers to flood warnings that were given and the Minister expressed some satisfaction in that respect. However, can the noble Baroness say whether such warnings are also accompanied by information as to what to do in the case of flooding? We look forward to reading the report from the Environment Agency, from which it is hoped further lessons for tackling floods will be learned.

We also welcome the improvement made to the compensation scheme to local authorities by the Deputy Prime Minister, especially as regards the faster access to compensation and the 100 per cent government funding. I hope that the bureaucratic means of achieving that aim will be sufficient, because an eight-day turnaround is pretty quick for any letter to Whitehall. Can the Minister tell us a little more about what the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to gain from his meeting with the insurance industry? A rapid response to claims against insurance policies would be very welcome, but will the Deputy Prime Minister also address other problems, such as that of the uninsurable losses that have been sustained; for example, with respect to crops already sown? Further, can the Minister say whether any initiative has been discussed with the Inland Revenue to allow for extended time for payment of VAT where returns have been lost as a result of the floods?

We are all aware that there is a link between the increase in the built environment, especially where building has taken place on the flood plain, and the severity of flooding. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her questions on the issue. The noble Baroness told us about the increase in funding for flood defences projected for the next 10 years. The figures sound large, but they do not, in themselves, enable us to make a judgment of their efficacy and the efficacy of the Government's flood defence programme. We need more information to enable us to do so. Is it the Government's expectation that the report of the Environment Agency will provide guidance for the prudent and rational action that needs to be taken to help achieve the best and most sensible flood defences? I take on board the comment made earlier that it is almost impossible to defend everyone from every flood that might occur at any moment. My comments should be taken in that context. However, will the report contain some factual estimate of the work that is required so that we can compare that with the funds that will be provided?

There are also worries about the diversity of bodies through which flood defence money is channelled. Can the Minister confirm that, at present, two government departments, the Environment Agency, local authorities, the Crown Estates and other organisations all have powers to become involved in flood defence work but that none of them necessarily has the duty to do so, or to see it through to completion? For example, was it not just that sort of bureaucratic lack of clarity that resulted in delays in vital flood defence work in Lewes? Is not a good deal of engineering and environmental expertise required to make sure that flood defence works fulfil the job for which they have been created?

Are the Government considering setting up a single agency to receive and disburse the funds, and to have the necessary information and technical ability and, above all, the authority and duty to ensure that flood defence works are carried out in a sensible order and to a satisfactory standard?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken for their general support for the measures we have instigated in response to the floods and for their expressions of sympathy for those affected and of thanks to all sections of the community who have assisted in this situation.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that lessons were learned from the Bye report, certainly in terms of the need for good co-operation and in terms of some of the emergency planning exercises which took place this summer. I believe that those exercises were of assistance in several areas when dealing with the enormous difficulties of the past few weeks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, mentioned the institutional arrangements. She is right to say that they are complex. The important matter is whether they are understood by the bodies involved and whether it is possible or beneficial to centralise responsibilities in only one place. The Environment Agency is the principal flood defence operating authority. It has a duty to supervise flood defence matters and is responsible for flood warnings. It also has to work closely with local authorities which are responsible for emergency planning and for responding to a wide range of emergencies, not only flooding. It is important that we retain a local democratic input in that response.

There must also be a responsibility in this matter on the part of the emergency services. As we have seen over the past few days, they may have to be brought in. As we have also seen over the past few days, it may be necessary to involve the military in these operations. We are looking in particular at funding mechanisms and whether those should be reviewed or streamlined in some way. We keep under review the work of the local flood defence committees and the agencies that are involved. I do not rule out for ever and a day the possibility of change. However, the most important matter is to get all the agencies which are involved working together smoothly and effectively.

As regards flood warnings and information on what to do, I believe that in the main that worked well, although I am sure that it was not 100 per cent successful. I believe that the facility to telephone people automatically when a risk was registered was valued, along with the general leafletting, the helpline number that was issued on local and national weather forecasts and, as I said in the Statement, the assistance given by local radio in alerting people to the danger of flooding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also mentioned access to floodplain maps. Those maps have been made available to local planning authorities. The Environment Agency is considering ways to make them more easily accessible to individuals as this issue assumes greater importance.

The noble Baroness was right to pinpoint the problems posed by the floods for agriculture. The funding I mentioned is basically funding for flood defence. Through the Bellwin scheme, that funding is provided to local authorities and emergency services. However, we have discussed with the NFU some of the issues that pertain to farmers—for example, arable area payment schemes—and are urgently considering what we can do in that area.

As regards tax and VAT returns, my honourable friend said in another place that he would certainly contact the Inland Revenue as regards providing assistance in that regard to businesses affected by flooding.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned taking forward best engineering practice. She mentioned the scheme in Boston. That was effective, but we must recognise that the storm did not affect the Anglia region in the same way as the North East. It is important to learn from experience in this country and elsewhere. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on Saturday that we intend to ask a senior independent civil engineer to carry out a review of technical approaches to flood alleviation in the light of recent experiences both at home and abroad.

The noble Baroness mentioned York and asked whether the "tolerance" levels of defences were adequate. The flood peaked in York at 200 millimetres above the "tolerance" level and the defences held. However, all of us have to consider the standards of flood defences for the future. That relates to the strengthening of guidance to local planning authorities (PPG 25). As I said in response to the noble Baroness's Starred Question on the matter a little while ago, the guidance is being strengthened. It is already government policy to discourage inappropriate development in floodplains. We intend to issue revised guidance next month which will emphasise in particular the need to move towards a risk-based approach which takes account of the likely impact of, among other things, climate change.

My Lords, from these Benches I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I was particularly glad to hear her say that when the Environment Agency's report is received the Government will consider the problem of coastal floods. I am delighted to hear that that is being done. She will remember the remarks we exchanged on that matter not long ago in the House. One of the matters that she mentioned would be considered is insurability. That also arises in the coastal context. I hope that a further matter might be considered which the noble Baroness has not mentioned; namely, the way in which the Government set a financial envelope for the study of coastal problems. That limits the extent to which studies can be carried out. I hope that some change in the procedures may occur as a result of the further studies which are to be carried out.

My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. We are focused on river flooding at the moment, but it is appropriate also to consider coastal defences in the long term. The noble Lord was right to point out that, in looking to the long term, we need to base our approach on good science and on best understanding of the possibilities for the future. I believe that we all recognise the need for urgent work to address the likely—although no one can say whether they are inevitable or certain—effects over the next years and decades. We are still not certain whether we are seeing abnormal weather patterns which are part of a cyclical exercise or direct effects of climate change. We need to understand that better in order to act appropriately.

My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that while protection of human lives is the first priority, the Government should review the inadequacy of drainage on our trunk roads and motorways? Is the noble Baroness aware that for over 24 hours a 20-mile stretch of the A1 south of Scotch Corner was closed over the weekend? That caused traffic chaos which must have been hugely expensive to industry, to the transport industry, which has problems of its own, and to many private individuals in cars. There was total chaos because of flooding. It should be a priority to ensure that the drainage arrangements on motorways and trunk roads are adequate to deal with such floods.

Secondly, I turn to coastal defences. Fifteen or so years ago, I was responsible for coastal and flood defences. Will the noble Baroness give an undertaking that no new money allocated for flood defences will be diverted from tidal defences. Unless things have changed greatly over the past few years, parts of eastern England in particular are still at serious risk from tidal surges.

My Lords, the noble Lord's latter point demonstrates how important it is to have local democratic input into establishing priorities, which inevitably will have to be set. Difficult decisions will have to be made in particular with regard to coastal areas. It is important that we debate priority setting. It is easier to have such a debate when there are extra resources available; and that is what we shall have.

I take the noble Lord's point about the importance of drainage on trunk roads. We are all conscious of the difficulties which are compounded with regard to transport. I undertake to ensure that the Highways Agency will be one of the organisations involved in the exercise that will take place when we have caught breath in terms of learning some lessons.

My Lords, first, will the Minister indicate whether the ABI has fallen down on its duties towards insured people? When did the noble Baroness or her fellow Ministers discuss the matter with the ABI? What has been its response? Secondly, what happens to tenants or sub-tenants who are not insured? They would not be covered by the ABI. Have the Government any plans in respect of those people?

My Lords, there are those who are desperately badly affected in a range of ways in these circumstances. Flooding has been an insurable risk in the past. Concern has been expressed that people who have suffered in the current rounds of flooding will not have access to insurance in the future. That is one of the issues which will soon be the subject of discussions between Treasury Ministers and the insurance industry. We are also discussing with the ABI how the insurance industry can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this. We have said that we will operate within 15 days as regards the Bellwin rules. It is important that those who have insurance cover have quick access to the funding which will come through that.

However, my noble friend is right to point out that there are wider issues about the overall affordability and availability of insurance. Those will be addressed.

My Lords, will the Minister address the key issue of not allowing planning permission to be given for land subject to flooding. Will not local authorities find themselves in the middle of a clash? On the one hand, they will be given this stronger guidance. On the other hand, the Government have committed themselves to major building of houses in particular in the South East. If local authorities have the courage to refuse permission, can they expect support if there is an appeal?

My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point although she would not expect me to prejudge individual appeal decisions on individual planning applications. She fairly points out that there are issues which need resolution. The Environment Agency may give general advice that planning should be refused because development is within the flood plain. In strengthening guidance, we are asking that it be moved to a risk-based approach which takes account of likely impacts. After the experience of the past few weeks, I am sure that local authorities will not underestimate the potential for flooding. But responsibilities for planning applications remain with local authorities. They are the responsible democratic bodies. They have to balance the factors.

My Lords, my diocese is in Yorkshire although I am glad to say that Wakefield is not flooded as York so sadly is. Nevertheless, families in my diocese have relatives who are suffering flooding in their homes. One family was enormously distressed, having read in newspapers that the value of its property would probably now be decreased by something like 25 per cent. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond immediately. However, can she assure us of the Government's sensitivity to the difficult financial position of people who may have bought houses in areas where there has been some worry about the wisdom of planning permission?

My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I sympathise with people who find themselves in difficult circumstances as regards financial responsibility. We have to consider carefully the implications.

One of the lessons learned after the Northampton floods is the importance of getting agencies such as the Department of Social Security involved on the ground, with Benefits Agency staff present from the beginning so that essential Social Fund applications can be met quickly and advice offered to those in distress.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us find reassuring the practical measures outlined in the Statement in the truly dreadful circumstances which people are suffering? The noble Baroness referred to work being undertaken to assess whether the flooding is an unusual climatic condition or part of a longer trend. But many will feel reassured only when they hear the Government put climate change, global warming and the strategic environmental considerations which arise in that context at the centre of all their strategic policy formulation. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the present circumstances—alas!—may be an indication of even worse things to come in the decades ahead.

My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that we should not assume that recent events are simply a reflection of cyclical weather patterns. We have to build into our defence plans allowances for issues such as sea level rises as a result of climate change. He is also right to say that we need a strategic overall view, not just a short-term response. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the same points in a recent speech on strategic environmental issues.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a civil engineer. Reference has been made to a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, a few months ago. Does my noble friend the Minister recall that one of our colleagues who is notable in the environmental world expressed the views of many environmental quangos—and possibly those of the Government—pouring what might be called cold water on the idea of hard flood defences and suggesting instead that the right policy was to allow nature to take its course? We have seen nature taking its course and it does not seem quite such a good idea. The Minister may not be able to give an assurance, but will she at least turn her mind towards a policy of extensive hard flood defences throughout the country?

My Lords, it is not possible to give an overall blanket response to that contribution. We have to look at the areas concerned. There is a difference between coastal and river defences. The appropriate solutions will not be the same for all coastal regions or for all flood plains. We have to look strategically at the defence of a whole area, rather than concentrating on small localised schemes. We have guiding principles about what is appropriate, but there is no alternative to careful scrutiny of individual areas, their needs and the appropriate responses to them.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Commencement conditional on progress to decommissioning),").

I support the amendment. My Amendment No. 7 has the same aim: that the implementation of the Bill should be conditional.

Our belief that this is an extraordinary measure has been underlined by the interventions of the Minister. If we are to make an extraordinary concession, surely it should be linked to something. My noble friend on the Front Bench linked the concession to decommissioning and disavowing terrorism. My Amendment No. 7 is similar, but seeks that this part of the Bill will come into force only after the Secretary of State has made a statement that the Belfast agreement has been implemented in all respects by all parties.

It seems to me to be a reasonable demand to make that this far-reaching, extraordinary measure should at least be attached to visible progress. It has been felt that the Government have been sliding and that we are entering an unreal world. I consider that the most unreal moment occurred a few weeks ago when the noble Baroness who spoke from the Dispatch Box told us that we had no idea who had fired a mortar at the headquarters of MI6; I believe that there is hardly a Member of this House who is not pretty sure who fired it.

We are living in an unreal world in which standards are being abandoned and we are making fatal compromises that ultimately may contaminate our own standards. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment and, as an alternative, plead in aid with it my own amendment which relates specifically to the Belfast agreement.

Attached to this group of amendments is my Amendment No. 35, which is of an entirely different nature. I am slightly surprised that it has been grouped in this way. Amendment No. 35 seeks to insert a new clause, which states that:

"This Act shall not come into force until legislation is passed by the [Irish Parliament] removing the disqualification on members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords becoming members of the legislature of Ireland".

In other words, I believe that an argument exists for saying that we should have reciprocity before this measure is implemented. The concession that we are extending to those who are elected to the Dail should be extended by the Dail to Members of the House of Commons.

As I said in my earlier remarks, I believe that the bar on membership of the Dail is not the same. No Irish legislation exists which is comparable to the disqualification legislation in this country. However, I believe that I am right in saying that one can stand for the Dail only if one is an Irish citizen. Of course, a situation may arise in which an Irish citizen who is resident in this country, or an Irish national in Northern Ireland, succeeds in being elected to the House of Commons and then manages to be elected to the Dail.

However, we are extending to all Irish citizens the right to stand for election to the House of Commons. I believe that a reciprocal arrangement should be made before this legislation is passed. After all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, sought to make his (if he will forgive my saying) slender justification for the Bill on grounds of symmetry. Let us have symmetry all round. Let membership of the Dail be available to Members of the House of Commons, which effectively at present it is not.

I know that an objection mentioned in the Minister's brief is that that would require the amending of legislation which would affect other members of the Commonwealth. We do not require Commonwealth legislatures to allow Members of the House of Commons to stand for the Seychelles Parliament before Members of the Seychelles Parliament are allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons.

However, as we have heard again and again, that is all theoretical. No Members of the Indian, Australian, Canadian or Seychelles Parliaments have ever stood for election to the House of Commons. There is no prospect of Members of Commonwealth parliaments becoming Members of the House of Commons. However, there is a very real prospect of someone in an Ulster constituency in Northern Ireland contriving through this Bill to be elected also to the Dail. The prospect of people being Members of the House of Commons and of the Dail is real. If such a situation is to occur, let us have treatment on all fours. Let us have some of the Minister's symmetry.

Of course, I do not believe that enabling Members of the House of Commons to stand for election to the Dail would justify the breach of the principle. It should not be possible for someone simultaneously to be a Member of two sovereign parliaments. Even if reciprocal arrangements were to exist, I should still find the principle offensive and wrong. However, if the Government, who have their Second Reading, are to proceed with this legislation, I believe that in order to make unsatisfactory legislation a little more equitable it would be reasonable to expect Members of the House of Commons, or people standing for election to the House of Commons, even if they were not Irish citizens, to be treated on the same basis. That is the thrust of my second amendment.

I rise briefly to support the amendment and what has been said by the two noble Lords. I do so because 15 members of my family are Australian citizens residing in Australia. Some of them are closely associated with the political machinery, both of the federal parliament and of the state legislatures. Never in any of my conversations with them have I heard a serious suggestion that any of my 15 Molyneaux connections should come here to stand for election to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, even though some of them could claim a certain qualification of residence.

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who, if I may say so, has a wonderful propensity for taking sideways looks at subjects. I do not know what that does for other noble Lords, but it certainly cheers me up.

Rather like my noble friend Lord Lamont, very reluctantly I support my noble friends' Amendments Nos. 2 and 34. As my noble friend pointed out, the objection to the Bill has nothing to do with decommissioning. It is an absolute objection in principle. As I said in my remarks during the previous debate, the objection is that a Member of two sovereign parliaments will have a divided loyalty.

Neither Amendment No. 34 nor, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, Amendment No. 35 does anything to put right that outrage.

However, if the Government were to get their way—I very much fear that they will, in spite of our best efforts to prevent that—I suppose that it is incumbent on us to do what we can to make a bad situation a little better. Therefore, with some reluctance I support the amendment. However, I feel that I have no alternative but to do so.

Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the link to decommissioning which my noble friends made in Amendments Nos. 2 and 34 has a certain logic to it. For those of us who are disappointed at the progress of the peace process so far, I am afraid that it has become a matter of constant repetition to point out that one set of parties to the peace process has signally failed to perform the undertakings which it gave as part of the agreement.

Political parties closely linked with active terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide—both the republican and the so-called unionist side—have failed to surrender one single ounce of Semtex or one single weapon. As government Ministers have repeatedly pointed out—and it was pointed out again in the debates on this Bill in another place back in January—that forms an integral part of the agreement. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said so himself and it is recorded in the Official Report.

It is perfectly sensible for the Good Friday agreement to make the decommissioning of weapons an integral part of any peace agreement. After all, it is surely part of the deal of parliamentary government—and I hope it does not sound patronising because it is common cause between every single Member of this House but perhaps worth repeating—that we do what governments of the day tell us to do, very often extremely reluctantly, because we know that everybody engaged in the parliamentary process will play by the basic rule of the game, which is that, if we are outvoted, we shall go along with it. It is when people who go into administrations without having thrown away the Armalite but still using the ballot box come into play that we begin to wonder whether the game is not being played with a weapon which the rest of us not only do not possess but do not wish to possess.

It is for that reason that my noble friends have been extremely sensible in linking their amendments with progress to decommissioning. I am astonished at their moderation because they refer only to "progress to decommissioning" rather than the completion of decommissioning. That shows how low our expectations have sunk, as my noble friend intimated. Therefore, if we are to do what seems to me to be this outrageous and very silly thing, at least we might get some benefit from it if it is linked to a dedication to a purely parliamentary means of pursuing politics rather than using parliamentary means only so long as they work for whatever faction one happens to belong to. If it does not work, then the implied threat is there that, "They haven't gone away, you know".

For that reason, as I say, reluctantly, I must support that amendment, although it seems to me to have nothing to do with the principal objection to the Bill.

I turn briefly to Amendment No. 35 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lamont. All I would say about this amendment is that I feel rather the same way about it as I do about Amendment No. 34, as I believe my noble friend does as well. There is nothing to remove the principled objection which many of us have to this legislation but at least this encourages him a little further down that virtuous path of his addiction, which is rather sudden, to legislative tidiness.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned the federal parliament in Australia. Let us take that as an example. How does the noble and learned Lord think that those friends and relations, with their federal parliamentary connections, would feel if the Government of Australia suddenly presented this Bill, changing what has to be changed for Australian circumstances, to the Parliament of Australia, saying that it would be possible to be a Member of both Parliaments if one were a United Kingdom citizen? We know that if you are an Australian national you can, at the moment, be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I have already made clear that I deplore that matter as a relic of imperial times which needs correcting. But let us say that the Australian Parliament were presented with this Bill, suggesting that one could be a member of the Australian Parliament and a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.

I spent an extremely happy year in Australia when I was 17 and 18 years-old, in the south west of Queensland. I am sorry to say that I have never been back to that wonderful country since, much to my dismay. But when I was there I learnt that Australians, even back in 1963–64, were beginning to have a very powerful feeling of their own nationality and the pride that goes with it. Even then, they were beginning to object to what I think became known as the cultural cringe.

In the wake of the Olympics, Australia has become increasingly self-confident and proud, and rightly proud, of its status as an independent nation. The idea that a mirror image of this Bill would be acceptable to the people of Australia seems to me to be so absurd as not really to require any further discussion.

So if it is right that the people of Australia or the people of other Commonwealth nations feel that way—and I am sure they would if presented with a Bill like this—and if, as my noble friend implied, a non-Commonwealth parliament, the Dail, might feel the same way, and there is no evidence to show that it feels any differently, if presented with a similar piece of legislation, why is it right that we should accept it?

It is purely speculation, but my only suggestion is that perhaps this is a hangover from imperial times when it seemed as though this Parliament were somehow greater and more important than other national parliaments and, therefore, we could afford to take a broader view and everybody would become privileged to become part of what would be a sort of imperial parliament. Indeed, if that is so, we go back to the days of Joseph Chamberlain, since we are clearly in the business of historical reconstructions today.

One only needs to ask oneself that kind of question to realise that what has become manifestly and increasingly obviously an absurd position for the Government to take is absurd even if one accepts the principle of the Bill, which I do not, unless Amendment No. 35 is accepted. I should prefer that our first amendment had been accepted but since that was not possible, I suppose we must try to make do with something which is at least a minor improvement on what is already an outrage.

When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will comment on another dimension to this matter. It was said in the other place that we had consulted the Irish Government and hoped that that consultation would reflect also the views of the parties. But how do the interests of the Dail in all this square with the position which the Taoiseach has taken since January—and perhaps it is a new development—when he said,

"for Sinn Fein to take part in a government with Fianna Fail",

which is, after all, what the Dail is frightened of because, although Sinn Fein has only 1 per cent of the vote in the south, that is likely to change,

"it would need to resolve its relationship with the IRA, as Fianna Fail did in the past, at the time of its formation".

He added that.,

"any government formed here would have to be in conformity with Article 15.6 of the Constitution which requires that there be only one Army raised",

by the state.

If that is what he thinks, I find it surprising that he should wish to see anything done which would promote and advance the strength of Sinn Fein/IRA. When the Minister replies, I should like to know whether any further consultations have taken place since January with the Irish Government to take cognisance of that. That seems to me to be a reasonable concern on their part and equally on ours. If we have a government in the south which is heavily penetrated by Sinn Fein/IRA, we are all in trouble, not least the Taoiseach.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the fact that I did not hear the whole of his opening speech, although I think I can guess what his arguments were.

Perhaps I may comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 which go to the substance of the debate. Obviously, everybody wants decommissioning to happen. However, it is not helpful or sensible to link this Bill to decommissioning. It seems to me that that would be going off on a tangent which is neither helpful to the cause of the Bill—I appreciate that the amendment is not intended to be—or to the cause of decommissioning. In this place we have found on a number of occasions that decommissioning has been linked to other issues. That is not helpful.

Decommissioning must happen because it is right in principle and not because we seek to link it to other issues that are before this place.

I have some sympathy for Amendment No. 35. I remember from my time in the other place the discussions on reciprocity as regards the right to vote of British people living in the Republic. It took some time for the equivalent right to the right of Irish citizens to vote in elections in this country to be granted.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that he has put his finger on an important point? The argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for allowing Members of the Dail to stand for election in the UK was, to some extent, based on the fact that Irish people living in this country could vote. He tried to argue that if they could vote, they should be able to stand for the House of Commons. By that argument, if, thanks partly to the efforts of the noble Lord, British people are now able to vote in the Irish Republic, by the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, they should also be able to stand for election to the Dail.

I understand the point but I think that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench got it right. Reciprocity may be desirable. However, I believe that the way to achieve that is to pass this Bill and then to enter into negotiations with the Irish Government. Noble Lords laugh. However, that is precisely what happened on the right to vote. We had the right to vote for Irish citizens living in this country for many years. Then, I believe in the 1980s, we sought to engage with the Irish Government for a similar right. That is the way it happened then. It is no good noble Lords laughing. To my mind, that is the most sensible way for things to happen here.

However, I am bound to say that whatever protestations have been made from the other side about the fact that, "We are against the principle but if we fail to stop the principle, let us do it this way", the debate has rather weakened the argument in principle to which I listened before the Statement. It seems to me that if the case in principle is as strong as has been maintained, it is somewhat weakened by compromising in this way. Noble Lords opposite sold the pass on their own arguments before the Statement.

As a Member of this place who resides in Northern Ireland, perhaps I may take the opportunity to raise a number of issues.

There was discussion earlier about the fact that members of the Commonwealth and citizens of the Irish Republic could vote in UK elections and that therefore it must follow that people could stand in UK elections. The point is that the people who are categorised to vote have a residency qualification. They live in the United Kingdom. It seems slightly unlikely that a Member of the Irish Parliament would he resident in the United Kingdom. So the argument is difficult to sustain.

I would ask the Committee to consider the effect of this type of legislation in Northern Ireland. As Members on this side of the Chamber have said, according to the Belfast agreement, there seems to be parity but some people appear to get more than others. We come back to the point where Sinn Fein/IRA and sections of the Dublin government are not fully implementing the Belfast agreement.

I listened with considerable interest when the Minister referred to the good relationships with the Government of the Irish Republic since the Belfast agreement. I am sure they were good even before the Belfast agreement, and I do not see why they should change now. However, while we are implementing the Belfast agreement, there are elements of the Dublin government which are not. I shall return to that subject later when we debate another amendment. It is not a case of rewarding them or giving them sweeties because they are doing the right thing. It is not even a case of giving sweeties to Sinn Fein/IRA because it is doing the right thing; it is not. It is not decommissioning. The only people I can see who are implementing the Belfast agreement in full are those in the party to which I belong; that is, the Ulster Unionist Party, and the people around us. It does not come naturally to us to be part of cross-border implementation bodies, but we are prepared to do that as part of the Good Friday agreement.

However, when we ask for understanding, help or support that might keep our community satisfied with what is going on, we are assured that the Belfast agreement is for them as well as for the nationalist community. We do not seem to make headway in the debate on the police Bill, nor in any other debate, or we make limited headway. I do not wish to take away from the help given to me personally by the Minister. I recognise that he has been extremely helpful on issues. However, government as a whole have not been helpful in playing their part in implementing the Belfast agreement and allowing us in the unionist community to bring along our community, which is an important element. As stated in this place only two weeks ago, if we do not have the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, we do not have a peace process.

Perhaps noble Lords could ask themselves what this kind of legislation is doing to the base support; the people who rally round the leader of the Unionist Party.

The substance of these four amendments makes the commencement of the Bill conditional upon three things: first, substantial progress on decommissioning; secondly, agreement by all parties to the Belfast agreement that all aspects of it have been implemented; and, thirdly, Irish legislation removing the disqualification for membership of the Irish legislature which applies to Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

As I made clear in the debate before the Statement on the floods, the position is that we put the Bill forward on the basis and in the light of the improving relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. For all the reasons I have indicated before, it is appropriate that the anomaly be removed. I do not put it forward, nor has it ever been put forward, as being a part of the Belfast agreement.

The first two amendments in particular do not relate to the subject matter of the Bill, but rather seek to delay the Bill coming into force until actions not related to the Bill have been taken by others.

As I indicated, this Bill is about promoting better relations in these islands—north and south but also east and west because the provisions affect the assemblies and the Scottish Parliament as well. To make these desirable and modest changes dependent upon action to be taken by paramilitary organisations would be inconsistent with the principles we are trying to advance. Similarly, to make commencement dependent upon a decision by all the parties that all aspects of the Belfast agreement have been implemented would delay the Bill for reasons which have no relation to the development of British-Irish relations.

I deal with the proposed amendment to the laws of the Republic of Ireland. There is no disqualification, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, explicitly acknowledged, in Irish legislation on the basis that one is a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords in this country. However, one must be an Irish citizen to vote or stand in an election to the Dail in the Republic of Ireland. But we are not talking about that aspect of electoral law; we are talking of disqualification from membership.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would have no effect because there is no sort of disqualification along the lines of his amendment. To say that we remove the disqualification that exists under the law of the Republic of Ireland to be a Member of the Dail if one is a Member of the House of Commons would not mean anything because there is no such disqualification. In those circumstances, there is reciprocity in relation to grounds for disqualification of members of the respective legislatures; what there is not is reciprocity in relation to the right to vote in elections to the Dail as opposed to the right to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

But this Bill does not deal with that; it deals with disqualification from the legislature. For that reason, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the third condition sought to be imposed is wholly inappropriate. In those circumstances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to withdraw his amendment.

I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 35 to a Division, though I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for recognising that it has a certain logic.

I recognise, as the Minister said, that the amendment is perhaps not correctly worded because there is no specific disqualification on a Member of the House of Commons being a member of the Dail. But in Irish law there is an effective means of stopping most Members of the House of Commons from standing for the Irish Dail; that is, that one must be an Irish citizen. One cannot be a British citizen and stand for the Dail, though one could have dual nationality and stand, which may be a means by which some people will stand in the north and also stand for the Dail. My amendment is not illogical. It may be imperfect in its wording. But it is entirely logical, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

As regards the noble Lord's points in relation to Amendments Nos. 7 and 2, I understand the argument that it is not appropriate because it links a different matter. But it is not entirely inappropriate to link a different matter when no reason of any kind has been advanced for this mysterious legislation that none of us understands. That is the unanimous view of everyone who has spoken, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who did not speak on the first amendment. No explanation has been advanced for this Bill, other than the flimsy one of "tidying-up". Nonetheless, I shall not press Amendment No. 7 to a Division.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, apologised for missing my first few words and I entirely exonerate him from any blame in that respect. But he did thereby deprive himself of the opportunity of hearing me say very fiercely that I object to the whole Bill. But the fact that I object to the whole Bill does not disbar me, if I may say so to both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, from discussing the details of the Bill.

I did not suggest that it would disbar the noble Lord. I suggested that it weakened the cutting edge of the point of principle made in the earlier debate.

If the noble Lord regards it in that fashion, then no Committee stage would ever take place. It is an absolutely absurd construction of parliamentary debate that cannot survive. If the fact that one objects to a Bill means that one is not allowed to discuss the details without being accused of weakness, then we can pack up the whole Committee stage of everything. Perhaps that is part of the Chief Whip's plan. Maybe others are trying to install that idea. I know that some wish to downgrade the Committee stage but that would destroy it completely.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way again. I appreciate how Committee stages work. I understand his argument. But I have seldom heard on the first amendment in a Committee stage of any Bill such protestations about fundamental principles as I heard on the first amendment we discussed today. It is for that reason I made the point; not because of the general proposition that I am against both detailed and principled objections.

I shall not pursue the point except to express the view that I am glad that our fundamental objections got over to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the first debate; they did not seem to get over to the Minister.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also suggested that it was not helpful to the cause of decommissioning to link the amendment to anything else. That drew me back to the debates we had at the time of the Belfast agreement and shortly afterwards when we attempted to make a close linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning I still believe, as I said a few moments ago, that the failure to do that was a key error on the part of the Government in dealing with Northern Ireland matters.

I will not add to what my noble friend Lord Lamont said in relation to Amendment No. 35. However, if a Bill were presented to the Dail removing the limitation that only citizens of Ireland can stand for the Dail and, when the Minister in the Dail was asked who wanted it he was told that the British Government asked for it, that would not be very satisfactory.

I turn to the amendments. This is a matter of fundamental importance. For that reason the Government should not give this Bill away, which is what they intend to do, for nothing in return. The suggestion is that there should be decommissioning. There are two versions on offer. I admit to my noble friend Lord Cranborne that my version is more moderate than that of my noble friend Lord Lamont. I thought it might help to attract the Government to this course of action. Clearly, I was mistaken. They see it as a sign of weakness. And if I may say so, that is exactly how the members of Sinn Fein see the Bill. That is exactly how they see the release of prisoners—as a sign of weakness. That is why it is no good continually giving away things—this is one more example—and expecting the terrorists to say, "Oh, they are nice people after all. We will drop our aims". They will not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 4:

Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ("provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly").

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will have made his calculations. He will be aware of the fact that currently there are two representatives claiming to be representative of so-called loyalist paramilitary organisations. I am not certain that the establishment—by that I mean the dreaded Northern Ireland Office—would particularly relish the expulsion of those two Members of the Assembly. If that were done, the majority would be lost and the whole house of cards would collapse.

I support these amendments. It may be uncharacteristic, but I wish to ask the Minister but one question. Can he tell the House what conditions the Dail itself imposes on its Members not only in regard to the rejection of terrorism, but also what oaths have to be taken and checks made on Members of the Dail before they can become Members? If we are to do this foolish thing, it would be very reassuring for us to know that certain good housekeeping measures had been taken by the Dail itself so that we may find exact reciprocity between the two parliaments.

I should like to know whether we can rely on the Government to apply the Representation of the People Act, which disqualifies anyone who has been detained for more than a year for any offence or who is unlawfully at large at any time when he would otherwise be detained? Anyone in that situation is precluded from becoming a Member of Parliament. Are the Government meditating setting aside that ruling, because I cannot see any member of Sinn Fein—IRA who is at present in the frame for this not qualifying under that description as excludable? It would be very interesting to know whether legislation is now being thought about while the Prime Minister has his bath, which might remove that provision in order to make life easier for everybody.

I support Amendment No. 4 and speak also to my Amendment No. 5, which is of similar import. I shall not dance around the differences of detail in the wording of the amendments. We are trying to achieve the same thing. I do not believe that either my noble friend or I is concerned to push the precise wording on the Government.

This is a very important point. I referred earlier to the possibility of Mr Pat Docherty standing in the West Tyrone by-election and subsequently for Donegal. The activities of Mr Docherty are extremely well documented in the public record as a leading member of the Provisional IRA over a large number of years. He has been very active in, and a senior member of, that organisation. I am not saying anything new. I am not seeking parliamentary privilege to make some great accusation. It is perfectly well documented in all kinds of publications.

The possibility indicated by this amendment is not a theoretical proposition at all. It might be an immediate one. Terrorism and democracy are incompatible. If democracy is to survive, it should not admit terrorists into its ranks. There are plenty of examples throughout the world where former terrorists have come into government and have made good leaders of their countries, but only after they have firmly relinquished rule by the gun and the bomb. That is the purpose of these amendments. I agree with the opinion of the Taoiseach quoted to us earlier by my noble friend Lady Park. Terrorism and democracy are not compatible.

These amendments would retain disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Assembly, which disqualification would otherwise be removed by the Bill in respect of any Member of the Irish legislature who has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and has not disowned terrorism within the meaning of that Act. I do not believe that there is any need for me to go through the list of the organisations.

As regards the approach in the Bill, I return to what I said at the beginning. It is intended to make the position of the Republic of Ireland the same as that of Commonwealth countries. In that regard, there are provisions in the Bill setting up the Assembly and provisions in relation to the House of Commons relating to other disqualifications. They will continue to apply as before. It is not intended to differentiate between the position of Members of the Dail and that of Members of any Commonwealth legislature.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, rightly identified, these amendments try to link to this Bill the one thing the Bill is not about. The Bill reflects the good relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It deals with the anomaly identified in the first debate in Committee. It would be contrary to this purpose to impose a new disqualification in relation to Members of the Republic of Ireland legislature which did not apply to any other body to which the right of dual membership applied. On that basis, it is contrary to the principle which underlies the Bill.

As regards the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Committee will know that all its Members are members of parties which have indicated that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. Therefore, in relation to the Assembly, there is already in place a provision which meets many of the points made by Members of the Committee.

Am I not right in saying that there is a requirement for Ministers in the Executive to make a specific declaration about having disavowed terrorism?

I believe that there is and I will check the precise details. Those in the Box are nodding that that is correct. However, I am going further than that because there is a requirement for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which goes beyond The Executive, to be members of parties which have indicated that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.

There are three further questions which I must answer. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether the Irish Dail imposes conditions in relation to terrorism. It imposes no disqualification provisions in relation to membership of a proscribed organisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked about the Representation of the People Act. I am not acquainted with the provisions to which she referred but I can make it clear that there is no intention to change the provisions of that Act.

In the light of what I have said, it always comes back to the same propositions coming into conflict in the course of the debate. We say that the move is sensible and modest, not related to the issues to which Members of the Committee seek to relate it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I agree with one thing which the noble and learned Lord said; that we always receive the same reply from him. We have just heard that it always comes back to the same thing; he tells us what the Bill does and then says that we should not link it with anything else. It may have occurred to him that that is what amendments to legislation do; they link legislation to other things. That is the whole purpose of amendments. They can sometimes achieve the precise objective, making it a little more easily, but sometimes they also introduce related issues. It is not an extraordinarily outré idea that an amendment should establish some linkage to something. The noble and learned Lord should not look so shocked and surprised and believe that I am the first person ever to propose an amendment which links something to something else.

The noble and learned Lord has not made much of a case. He conceded the point that Ministers in the Assembly make a specific disavowal of terrorism. If Ministers in the Assembly have to do that, why should not Members of the Assembly do that—or why at least should not Members of the House of Commons have to do that? It does not seem an unreasonable request. My noble friend Lady Park argued that that is how the law ought to be applied in any event; it is what we have come to expect.

It seems—if I may have the Minister's attention—to be a reasonable request. I see that I do not have his attention. Perhaps we are negotiating the dinner break, which according to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have already had. I wish only that we had! It is not outrageous to suggest that there should be a disavowal of violence.

I am afraid that this is all just part of the very shabby, contaminating compromises which are being made and which I believe will one day come back to haunt us. I do not believe that you can make compromises of this kind without there being undesirable consequences in the long run. However, the Minister is sitting there and Ministers have responsibility for this. After what he has said, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved]

moved Amendment No. 6:

Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

("( ) At the end insert "is a Minister in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"").

I rise briefly to support the amendment. We have heard that the Government have been anomaly spotting and have discovered one particular anomaly, which is the subject of this Bill. However, I believe that my noble friend has spotted another anomaly of potential importance. It is only of potential importance if the restriction on members of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth, or permission for Members of the New Zealand Parliament and so on to sit in our Parliament, arises. It is quite likely that it will arise if the Government believe that it is real enough to extend it to Ireland. Therefore, the anomaly which has been spotted by my noble friend should be eliminated by means of his amendment.

I support this amendment. My noble friend has also done a service to the Committee by raising this matter. After all, if those who object to this Bill suggest that where one is a member of two sovereign parliaments there is a conflict of interest, how much greater is the conflict if the person concerned is a Minister in either a sovereign parliament or an assembly which is subsidiary to it? Therefore, the basic objections must apply in spades. Surely, if only as a matter of degree, the noble Lord will see that here there is an objection in principle, and I hope that he will acknowledge that in his reply.

As a spin-off to this particular amendment, perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether it is theoretically possible for a Minister in the Irish Government to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Perhaps the Minister can say whether he finds it even sensible to consider rejecting this amendment which prevents the possible entry of a Minister when the House of Commons Disqualification Act excludes, for example, members of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Staff Commission for Wales and the Child Support Appeals Tribunal for Northern Ireland. It is extraordinary that no one is worried about excluding those people but is anxious to include people who have no relevance whatever to the interests of the country.

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 7A. In so doing I should like to make a few general remarks about this piece of legislation. I, too, am against the entire Bill. However, I hope that that does not preclude me from explaining my particular objections to parts of the Bill as it passes through Committee. I made clear my objections to the Bill during Second Reading in July, and my view has not changed. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I again ask whether the Bill is still important for the so-called choreography in Northern Ireland.

I was pleased to hear earlier the assurances given by the Minister that it is not within the Belfast agreement. Just as one cannot cherry pick that agreement, one cannot add to it without the full agreement of all its signatories. As it stands, Clause 1 would amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and permit members of the legislature and Ministers of the Government of Ireland to sit in another place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are all aware that potentially only a small group of individuals could ever benefit from this extension, and probably they would all be in the same party. Amendment No. 7A is designed to ensure that those who hold office in the Government of the Republic of Ireland as Ministers, junior Ministers or committee chairmen will remain disqualified from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons.

Why do I wish to do so? One returns to the question of a potential conflict of interest. To sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament may be a demanding task; it may not allow one to devote as much time as one wants to each, but it does not give rise to a conflict of interest. Any person, however, who sits in a devolved, national and supranational assembly can do so knowing that the interests that he represents are the same. But the same cannot be true of a person who seeks election to two sovereign national parliaments, or to a sovereign national assembly and, simultaneously, to a devolved assembly of another sovereign nation.

I oppose the clause in its entirety. This amendment may be insufficient. However, like the noble and learned Lord's description of this measure on Second Reading as a modest Bill, this amendment is modest. It aims to remove the inevitable glaring conflict of interest which will arise and is completely consistent, at least with respect to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Minister will not listen to the views of those who oppose this clause in its entirety, I urge him to consider what I term my modest amendment.

These amendments would create a new disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendments Nos. 6 and 39 would remove the existing right of some members of Commonwealth legislatures to stand for election and sit as Members of the House of Commons and the Assembly. Amendment No. 7A has a slightly different effect: it seeks to prevent Irish Ministers or committee chairmen from serving as Members of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Bill, with the amendments that we have tabled, will disqualify Irish Ministers and the chairmen and deputy chairman of Irish parliamentary committees from holding office as Northern Ireland Ministers or as chairmen or deputy chairmen of statutory committees. I hope that Members of the Committee will take that point carefully into account. We believe that our amendments are well directed and precise in their effect. The Bill is designed to prevent conflicts of interest that could otherwise occur if a Northern Ireland Minister or chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly also held office as a Minister in the Irish Government or chairman or deputy chairman of an Irish parliamentary committee.

A minute ago the Minister said that the Bill as proposed would not allow a Minister in the Dail to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He went on to talk about the chairmen and deputy chairmen of subject committees also being disqualified. However, is that not subject to the amendments that the noble Lord is yet to propose?

Obviously, that is the case. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the amendments.

Surely, it is quite wrong to describe a Bill in certain terms before we have reached amendments which are found way down the Marshalled List. The Minister has given a completely incorrect description of the Bill.

Technically, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have not yet reached those amendments, but they are before the Committee to consider. We are trying to make progress with this issue. I accept that the noble Lord has a particular view. We have tried to meet some of the earlier concerns with regard to the legislation. The amendments reflect those concerns. The same conflict of interest would not apply if a Minister of a government of another country were to sit as a Member of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Existing legislation does not prevent that.

Members of the Committee have asked questions to which I shall try to provide a response. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether a Minister in the Irish Government could be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The answer is yes, but not as a member of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that that clarifies that point.

This group of amendments takes us no further. We have met most of the points with later amendments. Although I understand some of the concerns surrounding this part of the Bill, I can see no good reason for the amendment to be pursued.

I have to say that I do not find the Minister's reply particularly persuasive. But we have been over this ground and he has returned to the core argument that has been deployed throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Obviously I am not making any progress with our point, which is shared by a number of Members of the Committee, about the conflict of loyalties and about undue influence in this most extraordinary Bill. In those circumstances, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 7 and 7A not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to reply to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He made some reference to it, but I do not think that he replied very fully. The noble Lord asked about the contrast between the position of the European Union and the situation that we are now moving towards vis-à-vis the Republic of Ireland.

In the debate on Amendment No. 1, the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to the lack of symmetry that so offends the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that we should open up membership of the House of Commons to Members of all the parliaments of the European Union. A Member should be allowed to be a member of the Bundestag or the Assemblée as well as of the House of Commons. That is restricted at the moment. The Disqualifications Act specifically disqualifies people from being Members of the House of Commons if they are Members of a European Union legislation.

However, that raises the question why that is not judged to be discriminatory legislation and how it is consistent, as is stated on the front of the Bill, with the Human Rights Act 1998 and with convention rights. I almost raised this point at the start of Committee stage, but I thought it would be rather disruptive before we even reached the first amendment. As it has been raised once already, but not fully answered by the noble and learned Lord, it would be a service to the Committee if he could give us a fuller explanation of how the clause is not discriminatory and how it complies with convention rights. Obviously this is a matter that has been fully considered.

There is a very powerful temptation, which I shall endeavour to resist, yet again to conduct a Second Reading debate on clause stand part at Committee stage of the Bill. Indeed, it is also a temptation to try to reiterate all the arguments that have been expressed by the doubters on all sides of the Committee during today's proceedings. Members of the Committee will no doubt be relieved to hear that I have no intention of so doing.

I wish to set on record my disgust at the Bill and what the guts of it in Clause 1 contain and at the way the Government have brought the Bill forward and the extraordinary way in which they have proceeded to manage its passage through both Houses of Parliament.

There is one explanation for the Bill which my noble friend Lord Lamont has given and which has been explained with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Cope; namely, a secret deal has been done with Sinn Fein/IRA. It was alluded to by the delightful phrase used by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms on 27th July when he said that this was all part of the "choreography" of the negotiations surrounding the agreement.

That is one explanation. But perhaps lingering in the background to the Bill, and adding to a fear that has lingered for a long time in the minds of the majority of the inhabitants of the Province of Northern Ireland—I speak as someone who has been interested in Northern Irish matters for over 20 years—is the thought that somewhere in Whitehall and among certain politicians there is only one solution which appeals to them to the so-called "Northern Ireland problem". That solution is that at the very least the Province should be pushed into a situation where there is joint authority over it by the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom.

I hope and believe that was not the intention of the government of whom I was a member. We have assurances from the present Government that that is not their intention. This piece of legislation will revive those suspicions in their most extreme form in the Province. Even if we thought that in principle Clause 1 was desirable for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I have already made it clear, I hope beyond peradventure, that I do not think that they are desirable—that purely in terms—I use the word advisedly—of the choreography of the politics of Northern Ireland, this is ill advised. In a province where confidence is lacking, the Bill will undermine what little confidence there is left among the Unionists that they can trust the Government of the country of which they are still a part.

I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to give the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, assurances with regard to the policies and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It is important that that should be done at this juncture.

I get the distinct impression that there are grave reservations in the Committee over the clause with which we are dealing. I know that some Members of the Committee, for obvious reasons, cannot give voice to their concerns. For my part, I fear that a Bill containing the clause that we are debating will remain a very large blot on the statute book of the United Kingdom.

I do not, of course, wish to make a Second Reading speech and so I shall confine myself to the provisions of the clause. We are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, back to the question that I asked him some time ago. Who has asked for the Bill? When the noble and learned Lord replied that it was not appropriate to ask that question, noble Lords on all sides of the Committee greeted that response with the levity it deserved. In my short time in the House I have not heard anything approaching the guffaw that that response elicited.

The noble and learned Lord has said that it is the duty of a government to set out the case for any proposal—to set out their stall, as it were. No doubt it is. It is also the duty of any government to explain whether a need is being met which has been voiced by any political party, government, advocate or supplicant of any substance or significance. Will the noble and learned Lord answer this question? Are the Government still wedded to the concept of transparency? If they are not, his response to my question was at least consistent with that change of position. If, on the other hand, they are, how can he conceivably justify his claim that it is inappropriate to ask as much who is for the Bill and who has asked for it as it is to ask who is against it and who has expressed those views? In the interests of parliamentary government, without being too solemn about this, I do hope that the noble and learned Lord will answer those questions.

Some shrewd and important questions have been asked of the noble and learned Lord and I look forward to hearing his answers to them. I rise only in case the noble Lords, Lord Dubs or Lord Desai, should take silence as consent to Clause I standing part of the Bill. It is far from it. Clause 1 embodies the nub of the Bill. I believe that it is a dangerous measure and offensive to democracy.

My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to the possibility, to which I had alluded earlier, that the Bill reflects a secret deal with Sinn Fein or others. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that the Government are walking blind into this trap; that is what it is if they are getting nothing for it and it is not the result of any deal. I have sufficient respect for the intelligence of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not to think that they are walking unseeing into the trap. I believe that he would have seen through it. That is what makes me think that something else is going on.

Throughout the proceedings, as has been made clear by speakers in the past few minutes, the noble and learned Lord the Minister has been attempting to present the Bill as if it is some kind of sealed package that is to be seen in total isolation from the surrounding political and security circumstances and in total disregard, for that matter, of those consequences Only a lawyer could think that that is a relevant and sensible proposition. Most lawyers would not advance it because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has made clear, they see further than that. It is an offensive clause in an offensive Bill.

Perhaps I may speak for a few moments. I appreciate that we are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. As has already been said, it is not a Second Reading debate. But there is surely one key issue. Our relationship with Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland's relationship with us and Northern Ireland's relationship with the rest of Ireland are quite unique. Because Northern Ireland is in such a unique position there are times when unusual measures need to be brought forward. That is the nub of this debate. Northern Ireland has a relationship with the Republic of Ireland that is different from that which any part of the UK has with any other foreign country. That is reflected in many aspects of the Belfast agreement—the North/South bodies, the Council of the Isles and many other measures. The position is surely not so anomalous as to say that it is inappropriate that Clause I should stand part of the Bill.