HC Deb 18 November 1998 vol 319 cc999-1011

3. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting. 4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments for any part of the period of four hours after the commencement of the proceedings which falls after Ten o'clock.

I acknowledge that this is an unusual Bill, proceeding to an unusual timetable. However, I believe that the Bill and the manner of its passing reflect the wishes of the majority of hon. Members, although 1 know that some have grave doubts about the timetable and the Bill—doubts that we all respect. The dilemma that the Government faced before the summer was that, if we were to meet the target of having the Bill ready to come into effect at the end of January, there was no opportunity for extensive consultation before it was introduced. Had we had such consultation, we should not have been able to put the Bill to the House in this Session.

I believe that we were right to introduce the Bill before the summer. The Government have done all that we can to make up for the adverse consequences of the timetable. The main amendments before us reflect our undertaking on Third Reading to reflect and consult further. We took note of points made in debates here before the summer, along with those made in another place since then. We have held the intensive consultations that we promised with the Northern Ireland parties, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which have continued through a long series of meetings, in which I personally have been involved.

We have also had many meetings with others. We have been ready, of course, to meet all interested Members, whether they supported the agreement or opposed it. We have also met the representatives of many outside interests. All the most significant amendments that we propose today have therefore, as I promised the House, been the subject of consultation with the key Northern Ireland parties, including those represented here, and with hon. Members from parties in Great Britain.

I believe that, as a result of our consultations, we have a much better Bill, which is a more faithful reflection of the agreement. We have augmented its provisions substantially in the areas of human rights and equality, and in strands 2 and 3 in particular. There are also, inevitably in so complex a Bill, many technical adjustments, so we have many drafting amendments made in the other place to deal with. The fundamentals of the Bill, however, are unchanged.

Although there are a good many amendments before us, the key ones will be widely familiar among hon. Members who take an interest in Northern Ireland affairs. Members who are interested will also have read closely the reports of debates in another place, and I hope that the note about the amendments that I made available last week may have been of some help to the House.

This Session has been significantly prolonged by the proceedings on the Bill. Both Houses have put themselves out considerably to deal with legislation that is hugely significant in the history of Northern Ireland. We are now at the end of the Session, and time is very limited—and because of our previous business today, we are all aware that there are still other pressing matters, which are also of great concern to hon. Members, to be cleared up.

We therefore believe that it is right to timetable the present stage of the Bill, so as to give the House an opportunity to pronounce on the Lords amendments, but also to permit other business of interest to the House to be properly dealt with.

7.11 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

I could not go along with the Minister when he said that everything possible had been done to consult people and give some basis of democracy for the presentation of the Bill. Amazingly, about 450 amendments have been made to it since it left the House in the summer. That must be a record.

Now that we have come here tonight to speak of those matters, it is interesting to see that the First Minister designate and his deputy, although they are both Members of this House, are not even present. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party is not here either. That shows that everything has already been decided.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

I am here.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is here, and he is worth an army—regiments, battalions and all—on his own.

I am simply drawing attention to the fact that everything has already been concluded. We all know that what the Government want will take place no matter what arguments are advanced; it is a foregone conclusion. As a representative from Northern Ireland, I must protest at the way in which the issue has been managed. If the Government had dealt with the future of any other part of the United Kingdom, over such an important matter as devolved government, as they are dealing with the future of Northern Ireland and its people, Members representing other localities would class it as an outrageous insult to be treated in that fashion.

Of course we understand about the timetable, but it is the result of something of which the House should have taken cognisance. Everybody knew that there would be a row about the elections to the European Parliament. I have been a Member of that Parliament, and I would like to have seen how the Labour Members from Strasbourg would have voted here tonight. I have had their ear for the past three months, and they have been telling me how they feel about the way in which things have been going. A row has been brewing.

Why should Northern Ireland suffer because of that? Why should Northern Ireland's representatives not have the opportunity to deal with matters on which we have made representations? The Minister may have had many meetings with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister designate, but he has not had many meetings with the parties. At least, if he has had as many with other parties as he has had with my party, he will not have had to go to too many meetings. There was one discussion on one simple issue, then that was left, and when we came back we had a discussion on other issues.

The Minister wrote to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), about an unprecedented and far reaching consultation process". I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches occupied by Members from Northern Ireland tonight would agree with that.

There are many points to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. The issue most commonly discussed in Northern Ireland is the fact that the Prime Minister said that if people were not satisfied, and he was not satisfied, with what was happening, and legislation was introduced, the problems would be dealt with in that legislation.

We all know about the five pledges, the substantial points, that the Prime Minister made. I notice that not one of those has been reinforced. Everybody in Northern Ireland knows that it was because of those promises that the result of the referendum turned out as it did. However, that result was undermined after the elections, in which 28 Unionist Members who opposed the system were elected, and only 28 who voted with the First Minister designate and his deputy. That shows plainly that there was opposition to what was taking place.

There are many issues affecting people in Northern Ireland at the moment. What will the Minister say about the prisoner releases? When we read in the paper that someone sentenced to 1,000 years for multiple murder is out in 16 years, we are alarmed about the future moral situation in our country. Time should have been given for a proper debate on that issue.

What about decommissioning? We have just heard from one of the leaders of Sinn Fein that that will never take place until there is a united Ireland—so it is clear that there will be no movement on that issue.

I have already spoken about the Prime Minister's pledges, but there are many other matters in the Bill that need to be considered. Of course, many amendments have been made to deal with some of the factors, but I must make the point that we are setting in place a system of government that will stay there until the next election. So far as I can see, there can be no change, and the Bill copper-fastens the First Minister and his deputy in place.

We were told that there would be no cherry-picking of the agreement, but anyone who reads the document will notice that there has been not only cherry-picking but the planting of a few more cherry trees that bear a different type of fruit. I see the Minister smiling, because he knows that that is only too true.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the department of the centre? Will it be based on a similar department in Downing street? Has this proved to be so good that the Government have decided that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) need such a system?

The tragedy is that we have an Assembly that is not meeting and is not having Committee meetings. Committees could have been handling cross-border matters, the civic forum and education, but all those have been relegated by the two Ministers to nice little ad hoc Committees at which those who are opposed to the agreement have no say. We believe that those matters should be discussed in the Assembly, but they are not being discussed.

Much was said about the d'Hondt appointment of department chiefs, and it was argued that that was the only way. Why is there to be a departure from the d'Hondt rule when it comes to the appointment of assistant Ministers, or Ministers of State—or whatever they are to be called? It will not matter what the electorate say—the First Minister designate and his deputy will appoint those Ministers. That is a radical departure from the agreement, and it is totally out of order. All appointments will rest on the electoral strength distributed by the d'Hondt method—except junior Ministers. That will bring in the power of patronage, and the First Minister designate and his deputy will have total power.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him—as he would wish to keep in order—that we are discussing a programme motion, which does not provide a platform for a mini-Second Reading debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am not trying to make a Second Reading speech. I am saying that these matters need to be argued and that we need time to argue them. I have not sat in this House for 30 years without becoming aware of the point that you are making, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am arguing, legitimately, that these matters depart from the agreement and from statements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. As those departures have occurred, we should have time to debate them. Therefore, why should we be limited? That is a good argument.

I must mention the matters that concern the people of Northern Ireland, who want their public representatives to have a forum in which they can be discussed. The Assembly is not meeting to discuss the issues, and never had a real discussion on any of them. At the first meeting of the Assembly, a resolution was passed that the two Ministers should have the opportunity to consult on two issues—cross-border matters and the civic forum. Instead, the two Ministers have not produced a report on those matters, but have gone into other areas—including education, where they have made some vivid changes from documents that I have in my possession.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

My hon. Friend told the House that he has been a Member here for 30 years. Can he remember in all that time a worse piece of proposed legislation than this? Is it not a dog's breakfast of a Bill? It brings discredit to the Government, to this House and to the whole democratic process.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I might have an even more picturesque description of the Bill than a dog's breakfast, but I will not get into that. I agree fully with my hon. Friend. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you have not called me to order, so you must think that I am now in order. I will now proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I, too, have been in the House for a considerable number of years, and the hon. Gentleman and I might agree that there is a narrower focus for a programme motion. I hope that he would accept the narrower interpretation, rather than the wider interpretation on which I thought he was embarked.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am on narrow ground and, unfortunately, it is getting narrower. If the Ministers had had any more time to make more than a dog's breakfast of the Bill, I do not know what we would have called it.

Matters of grave concern to the people of Northern Ireland need to be elucidated and debated, but we will not have time. The amendment paper is nearly as big as the Bill itself. The amendments are presented to us tonight, and we are supposed to nod our heads. However, we will not be nodding our heads. We will use every minute that is given to us by the House for a thorough and proper discussion of the matters.

It would suit me to say, "What is the use?" and to go home, but I am a democrat, and this is the only forum that the elected people of Northern Ireland have at the moment. It is only right that we discuss the matters and bring them to the attention of the House. It may look to others to be a useless exercise but, as democrats, this is what we have been called to do.

I am glad that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, realise that I am in order. I am pleased about that, and I will try to the best of my ability to keep in order.

Human rights matters—which may be of interest to all sections of the House—need to be discussed fully, but there will be very little time to discuss anything at all. I suppose that most people in the House do not even know what this is about—perhaps two or three have some vague idea. We have a mass of amendments from another place, and a mass of amendments passed through the other place which were tabled by the Government.

I believed that we were to get rid of Orders in Council. The House should look at clauses 71 and 72 and ask itself some questions. The Bill is cementing the role of Dublin in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and guarantees a place for IRA-Sinn Fein at the very heart of the Government.

We have had an interesting week, in which we have seen the attitude of the Prime Minister to Saddam Hussein. However, terrorists in Northern Ireland—a bit closer to home—tried to kill the whole British Government on one occasion, but a different attitude is being taken to them. The Prime Minister is not saying that it is the Government's business to put those people out of business—it is to put them in government.

The Government may not like it, but we have to discuss and dispute this matter. Therefore, I oppose the guillotine. It is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland to tell their representatives that the debate is to be guillotined and that they will not be given an opportunity to discuss matters that have taken many hours to discuss elsewhere.

7.29 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

I must start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and his colleagues on the degree with which they have listened to representations made to them by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by many parties in Northern Ireland, and for the careful consideration that they have given those representations, some of which appear in the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

The Bill was prepared in considerable haste after the passing of the Good Friday agreement, which meant that many matters had to be fleshed out in another place and we could refer to them only in passing when the Bill was before this House before the recess. I for one acknowledge the progress that has been made and very much welcome it. However, I hope that we will have sufficient time to discuss some matters about which I am still concerned. We are debating the programme motion, and I shall describe the areas on which we should have some sort of debate.

One matter that we should discuss is the limitation that my noble Friend, Lord Williams of Mostyn, put on the powers of the European Commission on Human Rights to have referred to it Westminster legislation concerning matters in Northern Ireland. I could deal with that matter and the arguments that surround it at greater length. It is a matter to which we should pay attention. Secondly, we should pay attention to the commission's right to subpoena witnesses and to require discovery of documents.

Thirdly, we should consider the most iniquitous matter. I regret having to use such a word, but that is what I feel about what the Government are doing in seeking to get around the Tinnelly case. It is outrageous that people should not know the facts on which their livelihoods and careers are to be jeopardised, and that those should be secret. It is wrong that counsel should be appointed by the accusor—in this case, the Government—but that they should have no responsibility to the applicant or show any care towards them. It is also wrong that people should not be able to have an advocate of their choice to represent them at all times.

In treason cases and cases held in camera, people know the evidence that is being used against them. This Bill would deny people that right. It is certain to cause considerable worry among those at the Bar, and I hope that we will have time to discuss the matter, given the programme laid down. If we do not have time, I have at least made my feelings known on the matter and we could consider it in more detail if we get that far in the Bill.

To return to my starting point, in spite of some of the problems that I still have with the Bill, I recognise that the Government have moved considerably to tidy it up, expand it and do something about the human rights provisions and the various matters to which we drew their attention in conflict, or which were not fully implementing what was contained in the Belfast agreement. We should recognise that fact and welcome it. I think that I am entitled to spend much of my time in the 45 minutes allowed for this brief debate in congratulating the Government and in coming forward to meet them. They have done a great deal, and we applaud them for it.

7.33 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not suppose that anyone who heard the Minister introduce the Bill a few moments ago has ever heard someone at the Dispatch Box do so with less enthusiasm and more apologetically, and rightly so.

It is no secret that I am normally coming from a different direction from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as regards the Assembly, but on this occasion, I find myself entirely at one with him about the way in which the Bill is being handled.

It is astonishing that a Bill that requires us to consider about 420 amendments, according to my quick count, at this stage could have been brought before the House in the first place. It is all very well for the Minister to say that that is an indication of the extent to which he has listened to representations. The base from which those have had to be made must have been pretty low to require 420 amendments, even when one includes those of a technical nature. Most of us will find that disheartening and frustrating, given our efforts to move the political process forward in Northern Ireland.

How can we possibly consider seriously that number of amendments in four hours, however they are grouped? It is an impossibility, and it shows a disregard for the interests of Northern Ireland.

Last night, when I spoke in the debate on prisoners, I said that it was a pity that the Government had not displayed the same enthusiasm for the implementation of the Stormont agreement as it had displayed for its achievement and putting it in place. I can do no better than repeat that remark this evening and suggest that not only this Government, but the Government of the Irish Republic have shown disregard for the anxiety of the greater number of people in Northern Ireland in the manner in which they have gone about the business of implementing what is, for all of us, a difficult and complex agreement.

The Minister probably knows the pressures facing my local hospital at the moment. I have to return home this evening to my constituency, so I hope that he will accept my apology as I will not be here for his reply. In his response to the points that I and others have made about the time limit set aside for consideration of the Bill at this stage, I hope that he will also find an opportunity to point out to us where we stand as regards the Prime Minister's obligation to the leader of my party on 13 May—I raised this point last night and did not receive a response. The Prime Minister said: Yes— I intend to make it clear that the commitment and the obligations in the agreement must all be fulfilled and that no one can choose to fulfil some part of the agreement and not others.— [Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 365.] It is a matter of grave disquiet to all of us that it appears that the Government have not been assiduous in ensuring that the Prime Minister's guarantee, which was given to the House at the Dispatch Box, is being honoured as it should be and in the spirit in which it should be.

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I appreciate the exigencies that require him to return home, but will he say whether he would have voted against the motion and other measures if he had remained?

Mr. Maginnis

Sometimes I regret giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The sophistry that he brings to the debate is typical of him.

The confidence of people in Northern Ireland—the very people on whom we depend to make the process work—is being undermined by the haphazard way in which the Bill has been presented to the House. My party most certainly cannot concur with the proposal to guillotine debate.

7.40 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

I very much welcome the Bill as amended by the other place. The number of amendments reflects the undertakings of the Minister and his colleagues to consult widely in Northern Ireland, among both the political parties and the many other community bodies. I am pleased that he has consulted so widely and so well that the Bill, as amended, will correctly interpret the Good Friday agreement not only in words, but in spirit.

The Bill is not a dog's dinner, but a beano; it is a feast to replace the democratic deficit that has existed in Northern Ireland for many years. The Unionist parties constantly acknowledged that democratic deficit, but now that we have the opportunity to establish the most democratic, most consultative and most all-inclusive Assembly, the Bill is rejected. That is a great pity.

The many amendments, some of them substantive, relate to matters that were signalled to the Minister by the House; the Minister has responded to those concerns over the summer. One or two items require attention, especially the procedures of the Equality Commission and the powers and attributes of the Human Rights Commission. The issue of security certificates is a particular concern for me—the Tinnelly company, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned, was based in my constituency, and suffered between 1988 and last summer in trying to achieve justice.

So that other hon. Members can participate in and deal with the matters that I mentioned in the main debates, I conclude by once again thanking the Minister and his colleagues for the widespread consultation and for responding to the requests from all the parties in the debates in July. I believe that the concerns that were expressed are faithfully and fully reflected in the amendments that were made in another place.

7.43 pm
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)

The Bill is probably the most important piece of constitutional legislation on Northern Ireland for almost 80 years. It is placed before the House this evening with more than 400 amendments—curiously enough, those amendments were made by the other place, that much derided Chamber that people think acts undemocratically. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has described the Bill as a dog's breakfast, and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has called it a beano. The Beano is a comic, and the Bill certainly has many comic features.

I want to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Bill is built on the Belfast agreement. That agreement was endorsed in a referendum that was conducted in a manner that would not have met Lord Neill's requirements and would have been declared illegal in the Republic of Ireland, which has its own legislation on such matters. However, the agreement was endorsed largely because it was believed that, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, pledges given by the Prime Minister would be reflected in the legislation.

None of those pledges has been honoured. People who have committed the most hideous and serious crimes have been released. Promises have been made to the political wings of terror—to parties that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland described as inextricably entwined with terrorism. That includes a party that may be allotted two seats on the Executive under the d'Hondt principles.

The Bill will create allegedly democratic institutions for Northern Ireland by placing on the Executive political representatives of an organisation that declares: "Unless the demands of our political representatives are met, we reserve the right to use political violence to achieve their objectives. We are determined to retain the weaponry that will enable us to do so."

Against that background, it is vital that all aspects of the Bill can be debated in the greatest possible detail. However, we have been allowed only four hours. Given my professional experience in reading legal documents, I have no hesitation in saying—I think that all hon. Members would agree, if they were truly honest with themselves—that it is impossible to have any real discussion or analysis of the amendments in that time.

We should not dismiss the amendments as purely technical, or say that they are only about housekeeping. Many of them are central to the future of democratic and constitutional government in Northern Ireland. They are about the government of two communities and, if they are to be successful, they need to be treated with great sensitivity and wisdom. The fact that they are being dispatched in four hours is a democratic and constitutional disgrace.

In Northern Ireland, we are familiar with being treated as people in no other part of the United Kingdom would be treated. In some of our prisons, it is as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum. A recent report by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons highlighted the totally unacceptable way in which those prisons were organised. The Maze prison was Northern Ireland in microcosm.

The Bill ignores entirely the fact that parties that are to be in government continue to be in charge of organisations that murder and injure people and destroy property. If that is democracy, it is of a very curious kind, but we shall have only four hours to discuss the Bill, and that is an even bigger disfigurement of the democratic process.

7.49 pm
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley)

I am perplexed by Unionist Members' arguments. We are here to discuss amendments to a Bill that seeks to implement an agreement that was discussed at length and endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. The question before us is whether the Bill properly implements that agreement.

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are discussing whether the time to debate the matter should be limited. We are not dealing with the matter itself, and the hon. Lady should know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Lady will have heard him.

Judy Mallaber

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that the debate is much narrower than was apparent from Unionist Members' contributions.

I have been incredibly impressed by the way in which the Minister has been prepared to listen to everybody and has been extremely patient in considering amendments arising from our previous debates. He has sought to take on board people's views on whether the agreement is properly implemented in the legislation. There has been considerable discussion, and I do not know of anyone who has sought a meeting with him to discuss the amendments who has not been heard. To suggest that there has not been proper discussion of the agreement, the Bill and all the amendments is simply not correct.

The four hours before us are not meant to be a time in which to raise yet again a whole lot of issues that are not in the Bill and not covered in the amendments. The question before us is, narrowly, whether four hours is sufficient time to discuss amendments that have already been considered in great detail.

People on all sides of the argument have had the opportunity to make their views known to the Minister, and I want to place on record my appreciation of the time that has been given to discussing the parts about which I have been concerned; if my hon. Friend has given so much time to those areas that I know of, I am sure that he must have given considerable time to all the other areas.

We have enough time for a discussion tonight. I am not trying to widen the debate: that was done by some Unionist Members who have tried to introduce a range of subjects that are not relevant to our discussion in the next four hours. I support the motion.

7.52 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I, too, offer my compliments to Ministers.

Representatives of voluntary associations have put the point to me over and over again that the civic forum will need to be given adequate resources if it is not to become a talking shop —

It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [17 July].

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 6.

Division No. 380] [7.53 pm
Abbott, Ms Diane Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Chaytor, David
Ainger, Nick Clapham Michael
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Allan, Richard Clark, Dr Lynda
Allen, Graham (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Atherton, Ms Candy Clwyd, Ann
Atkins, Charlotte Coaker, Vernon
Austin, John Coffey, Ms Ann
Barnes, Harry Coleman, Iain
Barron Kevin Colman, Tony
Bayley, Hugh Cooper, Yvette
Beard, Nigel Corbett, Robin
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Cousins, Jim
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Cox, Tom
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Crausby, David
Benton, Joe Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Bermingham, Gerald Cunliffe, Lawrence
Berry, Roger Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Best, Harold (Copeland)
Blackman, Liz Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Blears, Ms Hazel Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Dafis, Cynog
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Darvill, Keith
Bradshaw, Ben Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Brand, Dr Peter Davidson, Ian
Brinton, Mrs Helen Davies Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Burden, Richard Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Burgon, Colin Dawson, Hilton
Burstow, Paul Dean, Mrs Janet
Butler, Mrs Christine Denham, John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Dismore, Andrew
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Dobbin, Jim
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Dowd, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) Drew, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Drown, Ms Julia
Campbell-Savours, Dale Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Cann, Jamie Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Caplin, Ivor Edwards, Huw
Caton, Martin Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise Leslie, Christopher
Fearn, Ronnie Levitt, Tom
Fisher, Mark Linton Martin
Fitzpatrick, Jim Livsey, Richard
Fitzsimons, Lorna Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Flint, Caroline Lock, David
Flynn, Paul McAvoy, Thomas
Foster, Rt Hon Derek McCabe, Steve
Foulkes, George McCafferty, Ms Chris
Gapes, Mike Macdonald, Calum
Gardiner, Barry McDonnell, John
George, Andrew (St Ives) McGrady, Eddie
George, Bruce (Walsall S) McGuire, Mrs Anne
Gerrard, Neil McIsaac, Shona
Gibson, Dr Ian McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Godman, Dr Norman A Mackinlay, Andrew
Godsiff, Roger McNamara Kevin
Goggins, Paul McNulty, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McWilliam, John
Grocott, Bruce Mahon, Mrs Alice
Grogan, John Mallaber, Judy
Gunnell, John Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hain, Peter Martlew, Eric
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Meale, Alan
Hancock, Mike Merron, Gillian
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Healey, John Milburn, Alan
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Mitchell, Austin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Moffatt, Laura
Hepburn, Stephen Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hesford, Stephen Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hill, Keith Morley, Elliot
Hinchliffe, David Mullin Chris
Hodge, Ms Margaret Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Home Robertson, John Oaten, Mark
Hood, Jimmy O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hope, Phil Olner, Bill
Hopkins, Kelvin Öpik, Lembit
Howarth, Alan (Newport E) Organ, Mrs Diana
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Palmer, Dr Nick
Howells, Dr Kim Pearson, Ian
Hoyle, Lindsay Perham, Ms Linda
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Pickthall, Colin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Pike, Peter L
Humble, Mrs Joan Plaskitt, James
Hurst, Alan Pollard, Kerry
Ingram, Adam Pope, Greg
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) Pound, Stephen
Jamieson, David Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jenkins, Brian Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Prescott, Rt Hon John
Johnson, Miss Melanie Primarolo, Dawn
(Welwyn Hatfield) Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Purchase, ken
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Quin, Ms Joyce
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Quinn, Lawrie
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Radice, Giles
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) Rapson, Syd
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Raynsford, Nick
Keeble, Ms Sally Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) Rendel, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Rooney, Terry
Kelly, Ms Ruth Rowlands, Ted
Kemp, Fraser Roy, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Ruane, Chris
Khabra, Piara S Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Kidney, David Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Kilfoyle, Peter Ryan, Ms Joan
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) Salter, Martin
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Sanders, Adrian
Kingham, Ms Tess Sarwar, Mohammad
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Sawford, Phil
Lawernce, Ms Jackie Sedgemore, Brian
Shaw, Jonathan Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Sheerman, Barry Temple-Morris, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Timms, Stephen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Tonge, Dr Jenny
Singh, Marsha Trickett, Jon
Skinner, Dennis Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Angela (Basildon) Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Smith, Miss Geraldine Tyler, Paul
(Morecambe & Lunesdale) Watts, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Webb, Steve
Snape, Peter Whitehead, Dr Alan
Soley, Clive Wicks, Malcolm
Squire, Ms Rachel Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis (Swansea W)
Steinberg, Gerry Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Winnick, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Stinchcombe, Paul Wise, Audrey
Stoate, Dr Howard Woolas, Phil
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin Worthington, Tony
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stringer, Graham Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Stuart, Ms Gisela Wyatt, Derek
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann Tellers for the Ayes:
(Dewsbury) Mr. David Hanson and
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) Mr. David Clelland.
Beggs, Roy Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Forsythe, Clifford
Hunter, Andrew Tellers for the Noes:
McCartney, Robert (N Down) Rev. Ian Paisley and
Maginnis, Ken Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.


That the Order [17th July] relating to the Northern Ireland Bill (Programme) be supplemented as follows-