HL Deb 25 February 2002 vol 631 cc1230-43

3.8 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause I [Extension of amnesty period]:

Lord Glentoran moved the amendment:

Page I, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed this amendment before your Lordships twice already during our consideration of the Bill. I think that the argument between my party and the Government is about two things. The first and clearest basis for our disagreement relates to the message. We believe that the most important action, which could make the biggest difference to the people of Northern Ireland and to the overall ambience and atmosphere and progress in Northern Ireland, would be serious acts of decommissioning by all paramilitaries.

I am extremely unhappy with the way that the Bill has been worded. It does not send a message from the Government about their serious intent to tackle the paramilitaries and force them to disarm in one form or another. They have given concessions again and again. We have been over the arguments and I do not wish to spend more time on them. Yet we have not had any decommissioning from the loyalist paramilitaries who are culpable of the majority of the murders committed over the past year in Northern Ireland.

We had an act of decommissioning which came in a rush after 11th September. We do not know its scale. Some press reports may be interpreted as saying it was considerable; according to others, and reading between the lines of what General de Chastelain is reported as saying, it may have been minimal. We do not know. But in relation to the effect on the peace process and on politics in Northern Ireland, decommissioning may almost not have happened. We need a serious determination to get to grips with the decommissioning problem and with the arms held by paramilitaries throughout Northern Ireland.

The date in the amendment, which falls within the remit of this Government, is a reasonable date. It is not rushed; it does not stipulate the end of the year as the amendment in the other place did. It is a reasoned amendment. It clearly falls within the responsibility of this Government, before another election, to send the message through the acceptance of this amendment that we are determined, within the life of this Parliament, to ensure that we see some decommissioning from the paramilitaries. The way that the Bill reads at the moment leads the paramilitaries to say that it is another five years and they need not bother about it. But I can assure the Minister and the House that every year that this Bill comes up for review, my party will take the same stance that we are taking now unless we see some serious acts of decommissioning in between. I beg to move.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I rise for only a few moments to once again express my opposition to the lengthening of the period allowed for paramilitaries to disarm, as stated in the Bill.

I spent last week in Belfast. I spoke to many people on both sides of the community, both loyalist and republican. Many expressed amazement and concern that the Government seem to be making yet another concession to people who have been guilty of the most atrocious murders over the past few years. They are concerned about that. But they are even more concerned—I made this point on the last occasion I spoke in the House—that linked to this decommissioning, which will allow paramilitary murderers to hold on to their weapons, the Government will be introducing within a few weeks an amnesty Bill. The people of Northern Ireland fear that the two are directly linked.

It is believed that more than 100 terrorists are on the run. They now have new names for them. In Northern Ireland they had ODCs, for "ordinary decent criminals"—those who were not involved in paramilitary activities. Now they have OTRs—"onthe-runs". But in the minds of the general public in Northern Ireland there is a direct linkage between our approach to decommissioning which would permit terrorists to hold on to their weapons for five years and the fact that, in a few weeks' time, terrorists who have been guilty of the most heinous offences and who are now living in the Republic of Ireland will be granted an amnesty to return to Northern Ireland without any possibility of ever appearing before the courts.

Only one political party asked for those concessions; that is, Sinn Fein. The loyalists, the SDLP, the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists—all the major political parties in Northern Ireland—did not ask for them. So the concession on decommissioning—I am in no position to warn anybody will produce serious opposition in this Parliament if, in the future, it appears that an amnesty is to be granted. That opposition may not only be in Parliament; it may also be on the streets of Northern Ireland if the Government go ahead with an amnesty Bill.

I express my opposition to the Bill because I am convinced that it is a further concession to people who have been guilty of the most heinous crimes in the history of Ireland.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I, too, support enthusiastically the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for the reasons I gave on a previous occasion. Those reasons are even more relevant now than they were 10 days ago because the passage of time has made this amendment, and a different approach to the entire Bill, more urgent and more relevant.

I know that outside observers have great difficulty in understanding the proceedings of your Lordships' House. They fail to appreciate the importance of separate stages of Bills, particularly those Bills which have completed their progress through another place—I am not certain whether the word "progress" is appropriate; "mad dash through another place" may be more appropriate.

Before Christmas the security situation in Northern Ireland was comparatively stable. P O'Neill, the IRA scribe, signed various bits of paper. They were thought to be of great significance but do not seem to have delivered very much. Elected colleagues in high places—I say "elected"—made certain clucking sounds which have been seized upon by the news industry as -remarkable progress". Within minutes of an atrocity, public servants assure us that it is the work of dissidents, the implication being that the murder of a citizen is therefore of little importance. But now the security forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is aware, are on full alert in Northern Ireland, almost too late given the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the likely ineffectiveness of the replacement body.

While one is acutely conscious these days of Army overstretch. there is an urgent need for a return to an anti-terrorist role for those formations of the Army currently stationed in Northern Ireland, which are not insignificant. Whatever the fate of this now rather irrelevant Bill, nothing must distract security chiefs from their duty to protect citizens in the highly dangerous weeks ahead. Of course, additional costs will have to be met from the promised increase in taxation intended to prevent people dying, now to prevent people being murdered.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have noticed only about a week ago the Irish Prime Minister giving what appeared to he a solo interview in Downing Street in which he, Mr Ahern, described his search for a Commonwealth judge of standing to investigate various allegations into the murders of several prominent citizens over many years. One assumes, although one cannot prove it, that Mr Ahern 'was speaking with the approval of Mr Blair when he announced the trawl for a judge, so it would seem to be a joint appointment with, presumably, each government paying half the fees and half the costs, including the costs of the fairly large staff that will have to be appointed to serve the judge, and jointly bearing the costs thereafter of several Saville-type public inquiries which inevitably will follow. Whatever the findings of the judge may be, the clamour will not in any way be diminished. Such joint arrangements will hopefully ease the demands on the taxation increases already dedicated to the National Health Service.

I have a suggestion to aid the Irish Republic's taxpayers, as one must be fair and there must be a degree of reciprocity. Your Lordships will have heard of the shooting of a British citizen in a Dublin police station only a week ago. It is alleged that the deceased shot himself but the only witnesses were Irish policemen who were in the station at that time. In earlier years their word would have been accepted, but sadly throughout the entire British Isles it is now common practice to reject the word of any policeman. I am not asking for a public inquiry but it would be desirable to clear the names of those Irish policemen on duty in that station at that time by inviting, or appointing, the police ombudswoman for Northern Ireland to conduct a thorough investigation and produce an impartial report. Only in that way can the Gardai officers stationed in that police station be spared the kind of slanderous attacks which were made on the Royal Ulster Constabulary following the Omagh bombing by terrorists based in another jurisdiction. Subsequently, those allegations were gleefully seized upon by certain organs of the news industry. The names of those policemen in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Omagh have not been cleared of that monstrous smear.

No additional costs should he incurred if my suggestion is adopted of permitting the Northern Ireland police ombudswoman to function south of the Border in Dublin as her salary, expenses and staff costs are already paid by the British Treasury. Therefore, we are being generous and fair-minded as regards our southern neighbours. The suggestion would be a perfect example of the kind of "jointly" which is now being advocated and practised within the forces of Her Majesty the Queen.

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, I rise briefly—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will allow me briefly to intervene. I remind noble Lords that this is Third Reading and speakers should speak to the amendment. I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that he strayed slightly from the precise subject of the amendment.

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, I do not think that I am likely to stray far from the point. I rise to offer my support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Glentoran and, indeed, to express a good deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Fitt. I support the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it because I and a number of others are beginning to have doubts as to how serious the Government's commitment to disarmament is. I do not think that there can be many people who have not harboured doubts about the commitment of the IRA and some of the other terrorist organisations to disarmament. It appears to be zero.

We are told of the wonderful act of decommissioning which took place towards the close of last year but, most extraordinarily, although we are supposed to take account of it and to take it into our minds as we assess the politics of Northern Ireland, we are denied any knowledge of the size of it. It is a difficult matter to assess. We do not know whether it was a matter of one 1914 revolver or 50 Kalashnikovs. It is difficult to make any assessment of its significance without any awareness of its size.

I say that I begin to harbour doubts as to the seriousness of the Government over disarmament, for two reasons. One is that on every occasion when the Government have had a weapon in their hands by which they could have placed pressure upon the terrorists they have failed to use that weapon. The dates in the Bill seem to impose little pressure once again. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is now beginning to suspect that at some time in the not too distant future there will be not just an amnesty Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, suggests, but perhaps a Bill to provide for a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland.

As we all know, it is the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government to favour the union of Ireland by consent. Therefore, the objective of the union of Ireland is shared by Sinn Fein/IRA and Her Majesty's Government; it is the method over which there is difference. We recollect the powerful argument which was put during the referendum on the Belfast agreement; namely, that were the people of Northern Ireland not to vote yes, hostilities would break out again and the IRA would be on the loose. Whenever anyone wants to take any action in Northern Ireland which does not suit Sinn Fein, we are told that that action would damage the peace process. That, as we all know, is code for, "It would get the IRA killing and bombing across the sectarian divide". As we know, not too much fuss is made about murders which do not cross the sectarian divide. In the immortal words of one former Secretary of State, they are merely housekeeping.

But if at some time in future we were to have a referendum on the question of the Border, provided the IRA is then as it is today—that is, still fully active, fully armed and ready to resume the war—the following powerful argument would be put, "Oh, dear people of Northern Ireland, whatever misgivings you have, do vote yes or the peace process will be disrupted". We know what that threat means. That is why I support the amendment and why, like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I have the gravest doubts about the Bill.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I have supported the Government's policy on Northern Ireland for a number of years, but I must confess that I have done so with considerable uneasiness. I propose to vote for the Government today and I shall explain why later, if I can. It strikes me that the Government's policy is unbalanced. It was quite correct in the beginning to make concessions to the nationalist community as there was leeway to make up. However, like many others, I believe that leeway has now been made up and that the balance of concessions has gone too far in that direction.

I do not intend to speak at great length. I merely say in shorthand that the views which I express are very similar to those expressed in earlier debates in this House by my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I believe that they are right and I consider that the Government are mistaken in that the concessions have gone too far.

The result has been in part productive. My noble friend Lord Dubs explained that in a debate just before the Recess. I was not wholly convinced by his arguments, although many of them were sound. The effect has been to polarise politics in Northern Ireland between the extremes in a way which is undesirable and which is likely to show up in whatever elections take place in the near future. I am no prophet and I may be wrong, but I shall be surprised if I am.

There has also been a curious effect which I find a little disturbing. Whenever there is a concession, the nationalist side—not the nationalist side as a whole but the Sinn Fein part of it—seems to be laughing behind its hand. A week or so ago I saw a photograph in the press of the new offices in this building where Mr Adams has been established. An Irish Republic flag appeared in the photograph—the kind of thing one sees in the Oval Office in the United States. It is not usual in this building for parliamentarians to fly flags in their offices. To me, it had the look of an old-fashioned two-finger salute, albeit a highly coloured one. It was not meant to be a conciliatory activity or a gesture of gratitude towards the Government.

I shall vote for the Government today, with uneasiness and misgivings, for two reasons. First, I do not believe that the two-year difference is really significant. It may be useful but it is not significant. However, the second and more important reason is that I promised my noble friend Lady Farrington that I would do so. She is the best Whip in the business and I accede to her entreaties. But, in giving in as graciously as I could, I told her that this would be the last time that I would do so. I am giving the Government the benefit of the doubt but I do not intend to be quite so generous in giving them the benefit of the doubt in the future.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

My Lords, from these Benches I make it clear that we are in favour of decommissioning today; if not today, tomorrow; and, if not tomorrow, the day after. A great deal is said in these debates about linkages, and I shall add to that myself. For me, the major linkage is between this Bill and a crunch day. The two dates, 2005 and 2007, are the occasions when we hope not to debate this issue again. I hope that we do not ever debate it again, and I believe it is important that we do not create another crunch day which would increase the chances of our having to do so. There have been far too many crunch days in Northern Ireland. If the one thing that we can do today is eliminate the earliest of the two crunch days, I believe that we should do so. Therefore, we support the Bill as it stands.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass

My Lords, while I have sympathy with the endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to bring a degree of credibility to a flawed piece of legislation, the stark truth is that this piece of legislation is so flawed, based on misjudgments over a period of more than four years, that I doubt whether it can be improved. I believe that it heralds a great deal of pain and suffering for people in Northern Ireland.

The reality is that the legislation signifies a gradual government surrender to Sinn Fein/IRA. Although I do not want to repeat what I said in a previous debate, in the Belfast agreement in 1998 that organisation was accorded the opportunity to give up violence and accept democracy. It cannot have democracy with all the trappings of violence still in place. Not only was it given that opportunity but the people of Northern Ireland had their decision endorsed by the people of the Irish Republic in terms of what should happen. It has not happened because rather too speedily the Government have abdicated their responsibility to those who for 30 years, despite all the violence that they have suffered, have been prepared to continue to put their faith in the democratic process.

Many of us believed that the Belfast agreement could and should be a definitive moment in history. When we accepted what was on the table, we sought to make it work. But I regret to say that from the Prime Minister down there has been a tinkering around the edges—an embroidering of what the people assented to—so that there has been no significant pressure from this Government or the Irish Government to get on with disarming.

Therefore, again and again it has been left to David Trimble, the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, to take steps which have endangered the process of trying to bring normality to Northern Ireland. As the leader of that process, he has been forced to endanger it because he has not received single-minded support either from our own Government or from the Government of the Irish Republic.

I conclude by taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. He said that this was the last chance that he would give the Government—this was unsaid but understood—to behave honourably in terms of those in Northern Ireland who adhere to and support the democratic process. However, I say to the noble Lord that we are all aware that other things will happen in Northern Ireland which will not be debated in this House. We understand that a conspiracy—that may be too strong a word—a debate is taking place not in public but in private to consider the whole structure of the Special Branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I assure the noble Baroness that I shall not stray from the topic, but each time we give government a chance, those of us who do so find that we are let down. We find that a series of incidents occur which are allowed to go by default. Herein lies my difficulty. I shall support the amendment because at least it brings the period within the ambit of this Government, which I believe is the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Beyond that, I believe that the Bill is an abdication of responsibility.

Lord Kilclooney

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He has spelt out the position correctly. How will the people of Northern Ireland see this measure? They will see it as another appeasement policy by the Government following the Belfast agreement.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the Belfast agreement, in which the Government participated, confirmed that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that that cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That is totally different from suggesting that the Government want to bring about a united Ireland. The Government have confirmed that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, must take account of the fact that the settled policy of the Labour Party, and its objective, is a united Ireland by consent. That is why in Northern Ireland the Labour Party does not accept members but tells those who want to join that they should join the Labour Party's sister party, the SDLP.

Lord Kilclooney

My Lords, I shall not become involved in a debate of that kind. I know what the Government's position is and not that of the Labour Party. In relation to the Belfast agreement, the Government's position is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that that cannot be changed without the principle of consent. We must be positive on that issue.

Turning to the amendment, increasingly the people of Northern Ireland are becoming uneasy about the Belfast agreement. It is not the opponents of the agreement within Northern Ireland who are destroying it, but successive policies of Her Majesty's Government since that agreement was decided upon. Conveying the message that decommissioning does not matter and that it can go on for years causes great problems. Decommissioning should take place before the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the summer of next year. We have only one year left to save the Belfast agreement.

If we continue to say that decommissioning really is not necessary, that the royal coat of arms does not need to be in the Crown Courts and that we can have an amnesty Bill, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the future of the Belfast agreement will be undermined. Be warned, if matters go any further, as the noble Lord said, the two extremes—Sinn Fein and the DUP—will win at the next election, and that will be the end of the Belfast agreement.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, noble Lords have said much of what I intended to say. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I point out that debates of this kind provide the only opportunity to discuss policy on Northern Ireland. In my view, whenever we have such an opportunity, we have a duty to make relevant points. I strongly support the amendment and in this instance the relevant point is the perception of the people. As noble Lords have explained, that is the problem.

The problem is not the Belfast agreement, but what is not happening—the perception of the people, the threat to the Special Branch, and the failure of decommissioning. Incidentally, there are also the ridiculous and terrible matters like the lengths taken to recover the bodies of those whom the IRA murdered. After an enormous fanfare, only three bodies were found. Yet we were pressurised and made to feel that if we did not support that, the peace process would collapse. Every time we resist anything in the name of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland we are told that we are spoiling the peace process.

On Thursday 14th February in the other place there was at long last a debate on the relocation of families to this country because of paramilitary intimidation. The honourable Member, Mr Harry Barnes, suggested that the two Sinn Fein members who are now in this Palace may conceivably have attended that debate to listen to the consequences of the actions of the paramilitaries. They did not. The answers received from the Minister were wholly inadequate.

Of the money that has been devoted to aid peace and to help the victims, £250,000 has gone to the Warrington peace centre, apparently largely to appease and amend the trauma of the people of Warrington. What about the people of Northern Ireland?

I return to the point that this is one more signal that the Government are sending to the people of Northern Ireland that they do not believe that it matters much whether decommissioning happens next year, or never. I support the amendment.

Baroness Blood

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but in 1998, when the Belfast agreement was signed, like many others, I went into the community to sell it. Two selling points were the early release of prisoners and decommissioning. We all know which way matters went. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, but with a query. In Northern Ireland people will be saying, "Who cares whether it is 2005, 2007 or never?" The area in which I live is awash with loyalist and republican weapons and nobody really cares.

My noble friend Lord Kilclooncy is right. This sends hack a message to the people of Northern Ireland that the Belfast agreement is finished. We know that the Belfast agreement is the only way forward for the people of Northern Ireland. Yet this House and the other place send hack the message that these dates can continue to be put back and that it does not matter. The loyalists say that they will not hand in their weapons because they use them for defence and we do not know whether the republicans are handing in any weapons or not. So the situation continues.

I often come to the House to listen to debates on Northern Ireland and I wonder what message is being sent back to the ordinary folk in Northern Ireland. I have lived in north and west Belfast and all noble Lords have images of those areas. The people I almost coerced to support the referendum are now saying to me that next year the situation will be totally different and we shall have real problems. While I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and while I understand the thinking behind it, in Northern Ireland the people will say, "Who cares?"

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I do not agree with all of them, but I recognise the deep seriousness with which everyone has spoken. On a number of occasions it has been said that this Bill, amended as proposed, or unamended as I offer, conveys that decommissioning does not matter at all. I beg to differ most profoundly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The direct opposite obtains.

Because the Government believe that decommissioning is necessary and essential, we have a scheme that is rightly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, as possessory immunity. Although he and I do not agree on our conclusions, we agree on our analysis of what this Bill means. It does not represent, as one noble Lord said, a permit to hold on to weapons. Quite the opposite. If anyone in Northern Ireland is found in possession of prohibited materials, weapons or explosives or other devices they are presently liable to be prosecuted. If signals are to matter at all, it is worth bearing in mind that under the Bill possessory immunity will pertain only if weapons are part of a scheme of decommissioning.

I could understand a purist's approach that, "We never agreed with the Act originally, and we do not agree with any continuation now". But that is not what the majority of your Lordships have said. The original Act allowed for a period of up to five years during which those who wished to decommission weapons could do so. That is an extremely important, indeed critical, potential turning point in Northern Ireland.

I suggest that the important question for your Lordships is: do we want to have the opportunity of this possessory immunity further continued? If your Lordships do not—I repeat that I understand the purist position—then there is no opportunity to give any legal immunity to anyone in possession of these weapons, or explosives or any other similar devices.

The Bill, if it is passed, extends the present term for a further maximum of five years. I stress those words. The first Bill provided for up to a full five-year term; this is a time-limited Bill up to a five-year term. But the one point that has hardly been touched on, except by the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, is that this issue is subject to annual review by Parliament—every 12 months—on the affirmative order basis.

A number of noble Lords have said—I know it is frequently said on these occasions—that signals are important. It is not for me to dissent from that. But reality and availability of possessory immunity within the law are also important. It is right that Parliament should consider this matter as often as every 12 months on the affirmative order basis.

Not all noble Lords have been present during earlier stages of the Bill. I must disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, about opportunities. We have had them on the Bill at Second Reading, on Report and in Committee. They have been fully taken by some of your Lordships. Not all of your Lordships were here on those occasions. I know that the exigencies of other duties sometimes make that impossible, but I put the question, which is not entirely rhetorical: if these criminals come to a change of mind or heart or spirit, should there be the opportunity available to them within the law to express that in practice? That is not a rhetorical question; it is a legitimate one to be put.

Therefore, what I propose to your Lordships—I recognise the seriousness of this occasion—is that we extend the Bill for a period of five years, which is the usual time limit of a Bill. It has its own inbuilt structures of parliamentary control, which again I respectfully commend in principle.

Perhaps I may return to the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He said that on every occasion when the issue comes up for review my party will adopt the same stance. He and I are at one in recognising that his party, other parties and people of no party will have that annual occasion.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that intervention. This has been a fascinating debate. Much of what has been said today has been said before. It is— and I hope that it will be taken as such—a serious warning and a demonstration to the Government from many people who live in Northern Ireland, as to where this deadline really is. This deadline was made very clear by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, in different references—one to the elections in May 2003 and one to the reception that debates in your Lordships' House receive in the part of Belfast where the noble Baroness lives.

I started by saying that this amendment is about messages. It is about messages. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, representing the Government. and I disagree on the way that those messages will be received if the Bill remains as it is. I believe that this is one of the last few chances that we have to start to reverse the thinking of the supporters of the agreement who will vote in May 2003. This must be the start of a change of process, which is seen and understood by the people of Northern Ireland and led by Her Majesty's Government, to help those supporters vote for the parties who support the agreement.

I want to test the opinion of the House.

3.55 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall he agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Buscombe, B.
Astor, V. Byford, B.
Astor of Hever, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Attlee, E. Camegy of Lour, B.
Bell, L. Chadlington, L.
Blaker, L. Chalfont, L.
Blood, B. Cobbold, L.
Boardman, L. Colville of Culross, V.
Bowness, L. Cooke of Islandreagh, L.
Bridgeman, V. Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Brittan of Spennithome, Cox. B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Craig of Radley, L.
Brookeborough. V. Craigavon, V.
Crickhowell, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Cuckney, L. Mancroft, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Marlesford, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Denham. L. Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Montrose, D.
Eden of Winton, L. Mowbray and Stounon. L.
Elles, B. Moynihan, L.
Elliott of Morpeth. L. Murton of Lindisfarne. L.
Elton, L Northbrook, L.
Fitt, L. Northesk, E.
Fookes, B. O'Cathain, B.
Freeman, L. Oxfuird, V.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Palmer, L.
Geddes, L Park of Monmouth, B.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. Patten, L.
Glentoran, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Gray of Contin. L. Perry of Southwark, B.
Grecnwav, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Hanham, B. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Hayhoe, L. Pym, L.
Henley, L. Quinton. L.
Higgins, L. Reay, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Renton, L.
Hooper, B. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Howe, E. Rot herwick, L.
Howell of Guildford, L. St John of Fawsley, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Inge, L. Seccombe. B. [Teller]
James of Holland Park, B. Selbome, E.
Kilclooney, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Kimball, L. Strathclyde, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L. Swinfen, L.
Luke, L. Tebbit, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Trumpingtou, B.
MacGregor of Pulliam Market, L. Vivian. L.
Waddington, L.
Wilcox, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Davies of Oldham, L.
Addington, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Alli, L. Donoughue, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Donnand of Easington, L.
Amos. B. Dubs, L.
Andrews, B. Eatwell, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Elis-Thomas, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Avebury, L. Evans of Watford, L.
Barker, B. Ezra, L.
Barnett, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Falkender, B.
Berkeley, L. Falkland, V.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Blackstone, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Borne, L. Filkin, L.
Bradshaw, L. Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Bragg, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Brennan, L. Gladwin of Clee, L.
Brett, L. Goldsmith, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Goodhart, L.
Brookman, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Burlison, L. Goudie, B.
Campbell-Savours, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Carter, L. [Teller] Graham of Edmonton, L.
Christopher, L. Gregson, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Grenfell, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Grocott, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Hardy of Watli, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. Harris of Haringey, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Harrison, L.
Crawley, B. Haskel, L.
David, B. Hattersley, L.
Davies of Coity. L. Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Prys-Davies, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B. Rea, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Redesdale, L.
Hoyle, L. Rees, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Richard, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor) Rogers of Riverside, L.
Roll of Ipsden, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. Rooker, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Roper, L.
Jones, L. Russell, E.
Jordan, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Sawyer, L.
King of West Bromwich, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Kirkhill, L. Scott of Needham Market, B.
Lea of Crondall, L. Serota, B.
Lipsey, L. Serota, B.
Lockwood, B. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Sheldon, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Simon, V.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Smith of Leigh, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. Stallard, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
McNally, L. Taverne, L.
Marsh, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Masham of Ilton, B. Temple-Morris, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Tenby, V.
Massey of Darwen, B. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Milner of Leeds, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Mishcon, L. Thornton, B.
Mitchell, L. Tumberg, L.
Morgan, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Morris of Manchester, L. Uddin, B.
Murray of Epping Forest, L. Varley, L.
Northover, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Walmsley, B.
Ouseley, L. Warwick of Undercliffc, B.
Parry, L. Whitaker, B.
Paul, L. Whitty, L. [Teller]
Pendry, L. Wigoder, L.
Peston, L. Wilkins, B.
Pitkeathley, B. Williams of Crosby, B.
Plant of Highfield, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Bill passed.

Forward to