§ 7. The following paragraphs apply to—
- (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill.
- (b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, and
- (c) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its chairman) and the report of such a Committee.
§ 8. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
§ 9. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
§ 10. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ 11.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings to which paragraph 7 applies take place a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would stand over to Seven o'clock—
- (a) that Motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and
- (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
§ (2) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
§ 12. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
§ I shall speak briefly on the supplemental allocation of time motion for the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which we last debated on 11 July. The Bill has been the subject of the most intensive consultation with Members of both Houses and with parties, interested individuals and statutory organisations across the board. No part of the 182 body politic has not expressed a view, and we are now considering a measure that has benefited from such extensive input.
§ As the Bill stands, it deals with policing realities and with the Patten report, not people's interpretations of Patten. When implemented, it will deliver an effective, accountable and—most importantly—acceptable police service that will meet the needs of the new Northern Ireland.
§ When the House finished its consideration of the Bill in July, the Government accepted that it would undergo further changes during its consideration in the other place. As a result of helpful and constructive debates in the other place, the Bill has undergone significant improvement. In particular, we have improved the financial accountability arrangements between the Policing Board, the Chief Constable and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the way in which it will deliver best value standards. Enhancements have also been made to its approach to recruitment to the new service.
§ I am pleased that our approach on that issue is underpinned by the exemption obtained to the European Community employment directive. There are, of course, several amendments dealing with that and other issues. In total, we have to consider 140 amendments from the other place, although some 40 are minor and miscellaneous, and more than 25 involve best value.
§ In the main, the amendments arise from detailed debates in Committee in the House and from constructive consideration in the other place. The motion provides sufficient time for the consideration of those amendments. I hope that the House will agree that it is better to use our time wisely and productively by discussing their substance than to have a general debate on the Bill's principles.
§ The Bill will deliver good and effective policing with a police service that is representative of the whole community. That is what the Good Friday agreement called for when it suggested that there should be a review of policing in Northern Ireland. The Government have honoured that commitment and I look forward to our debates on the amendments. I commend the motion to the House.
§ 53 pm
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)
Any Parliament that decides to reform policing in Northern Ireland must, surely, have one simple objective: to ensure that the ordinary, law-abiding and decent majority of people in both communities are better protected from the men of violence and from terrorism.
We need to reflect on whether passing the Bill tonight will achieve that sole objective. I fear that it will not because certain significant amendments, which were moved in another place by my colleagues, were defeated by the Government majority. There has been no compromise over the name, so the Royal Ulster Constabulary will completely lose its name and its cap badge, although the insignia represent both communities. That will adversely affect police morale and therefore endanger safety and life in the Province.
Even more serious are our amendments on the composition of the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships. Those bodies will involve a real
183 security risk because men of violence—previously convicted terrorists—and those representing paramilitary parties will be able to sit on the board and on district policing partnerships. That is not in the interests of the ordinary law-abiding majority of people in both communities, whom it is our duty to protect.
I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State, what purpose does the Bill serve? It has not even achieved the Secretary of State's precious and necessary objective of persuading nationalist and republican politicians to encourage their community to join the police force. In the last few weeks, SDLP and Sinn Fein politicians have failed to agree to call on their communities to join the police force, despite the loss of the name and the loss of the cap badge, and the—in my view—serious omissions represented by allowing ex-terrorists on to the board. I believe—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing the allocation of time motion. Perhaps those matters can be discussed when we come to the amendments.
§ Mr. MacKay
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
It is for that reason—the fact that we have lost votes in the other place—that I see no case for the supplementary timetable motion. Very few controversial amendments are left. This is just another example of the Government's wishing to railroad everything through, and wishing never to allow the House to have proper debate.
I ask myself why there is any need for a timetable, given that the Minister readily acknowledged that many of the amendments were very minor and very technical, and given that very few are controversial. It makes me wonder whether, owing to the Government's defeat in another place last night on the Disqualifications Bill, they were anxious to make more time to allow that squalid little Bill to return to this place rather than being buried, as it effectively was by the removal of clause 1 last night.
The Government would be singularly ill-advised to bring back the Disqualifications Bill. It was not in the Queen's Speech. All it has done is attempt to appease Sinn Fein, and we do not wish to see it.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has articulated the general objection to the Bill, and I will therefore not repeat it. Let me say, however, that I have the strongest opposition to the use of timetables, both in general and in particular.
I do not believe—if the Minister will forgive me—that he has even tried to advance an argument in favour of timetabling the Bill. He has told us about the number of amendments: he has told us that there are 140—indeed, there are 13 groups—and that 40 are minor. A proper inference to draw from that is that the remaining 100 are not minor.
My right hon. Friend said that, for the most part, the amendments were not controversial, but that does not strike me as a good reason for truncating debate, unless there is a powerful and compelling case for doing so—and it is for the Government to demonstrate that there is.
184 If there were a genuine fear that hon. Members would wilfully and unreasonably extend debate, that would be a good reason for truncating it; but I do not believe that there is such a genuine fear. I therefore ask myself what can be the justification, and I see no such justification.
I understand, of course, that Ministers feel that their parliamentary timetable may be at risk, but whose fault is that? It is not our fault, and it is not itself a good reason for truncating parliamentary debate. The plain truth is that we had an extraordinarily long recess. I personally benefited from that, but we could have sat earlier, and the programme could have been very much lighter. In fact, the Government are imposing timetables because they have so overloaded the parliamentary agenda as to put their own artificial timetable at risk.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government are fundamentally mistaken in their assumption, and in the premise from which it works, that the presence on the Order Paper of a large number of amendments somehow justifies the imposition of a timetable? Is it not the case that the presence of that large number of amendments, even if technical and drafting, is testimony to the ill-considered, badly prepared, poorly conceived character of the Bill?
§ Mr. Hogg
It is testimony to that in part, but it also points to the need for a more extended debate, for reasons that I will come to.
I have referred to the fact that Ministers complain about the risk that debate poses to their parliamentary timetable. Government Back Benchers will complain about staying late. That argument is often advanced, but I make two points. First, it is the business of Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. If a Government introduce legislation that requires scrutiny, it ill behoves Government Back Benchers to say that they do not want to sit and to scrutinise it.
The second point works in a slightly different direction. The solution lies in the hands of Government Back Benchers. They have to say to their Whips, "I am sorry, but I am not going to spend the night here" or "I am not going to support your beastly legislation." If they said that often enough, the Government would start to listen to them, which would make a pleasant change for them, and they would begin to have an effect on the volume and quantity of legislation.
If Government Back Benchers really want to reinstate their reputation in the public eye, which will be a hard task for them at the best of times, one of the things that they should do is mark out their independence and cease to be the creatures and clones of the Whips Office and Ministers. They would do well to learn those lessons.
I return to the substance of the matter. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is in his place because he has strong views on timetable motions, which I hope he will articulate, if he gets the opportunity. The first thing that we need to grasp is this. A total of 140 amendments are before the House. It is the first time that right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to look at many of those amendments. It is not good enough to say that 40 of them are minor and 20 more relate to best value. That leaves many others which are not.
185 Let us be clear about this: if the timetable motion is passed, many of the amendments, and probably many of the groups of amendments, will not be discussed at all. That takes me to the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who made an important point. If at this stage in the passage of the Bill there are many amendments on the Order Paper, for two reasons that argues not for a timetable, but for an extended debate.
One reason is that legislation is improved by scrutiny; that is why we have scrutiny. If we let amendments go through without discussion, as night follows day we will have bad law, and that is an abomination. I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) nodding. He and I know from our practice in the courts that that is true.
We lose sight of the other reason at our peril. Democracy depends on the acquiesence of the electorate. They want to feel that legislation and policy are being enacted after proper scrutiny. If we do not subject legislation to proper scrutiny, two things happen: we dishonour ourselves in the eyes of the public, although I hope that the opprobrium will fall on Ministers; and, perhaps more dangerously, respect for the law falls, because the public know full well that it is simply law that reflects the dictate of a Department and Ministers and has not been the subject of proper debate. In that way, we dishonour ourselves and respect for the law.
It is an absolute outrage that the timetable motion and the Division that, I hope, will follow will come out of substantive time. That again shows the Government's contempt for the House. I am against timetables. We should go on protesting, although timetabling is becoming the norm under the Government.
§ 4.4 pm
§ Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)
I noted with interest that when the Minister of State opened the debate, he referred to the consultation on the Bill and the implementation of the Patten report. May I say at the outset that this is the first time that I have ever dealt with a Bill about which there was no prior consultation? I believe that the Minister of State is fully aware of that and that the House is fully aware of the implications, to the extent that this has become a fractious, divisive debate on the issue.
The Minister of State mentioned implementing Patten. One of the many reasons that I am greatly opposed to today's timetable motion is that when we last debated the Bill on 11 July, almost all the controversial issues were not debated on the Floor of the House. I do not want to give a litany of those issues, but I think that their importance can be summed up just by looking at them—the flag, the badge, quota, powers of the Policing Board, the ombudsman, the Oversight Commissioner and accountability. Those issues were not debated on the Floor of the House on 11 July. That is why I believe it essential that, whichever way the Bill goes tonight, we at least take the opportunity to make a contribution on the issues that affect us all so deeply.
I do not know whether the predictions that there will be a guillotine tonight are correct. I am, by nature, opposed to guillotines. However, I hope that in the interests of the future, time will be made available in the debate so that some of the outstanding points that people must understand are clarified.
186 May I suggest some such points to the Secretary of State? I would like him to say on the Floor of the House tonight that, in accordance with Patten, the Union flag will not be flown on police buildings from the date on which this becomes operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] That is what Patten recommended, and if we are discussing the Patten report we must deal with its recommendations. I provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity—no double negatives or quadruple negatives—to let people in Northern Ireland who have to make judgments know.
Will the Secretary of State use the opportunity provided by the time allocated tonight to make it clear that a police flag or emblem will not have any identification with the British or Irish state? That is also a requirement of the Patten report, and such neutrality could be crucial.
We are not yet in possession of the facts about a crucial element that I believe the Government can clarify tonight. I refer to the implementation plan and the aspects of it that were specifically referred to by Patten—the subsuming of special branch into the police service under an Assistant Chief Constable, an indicative date for ending the full-time Reserve, the time scale for increasing the part-time Reserve and decisions on the holding centres, especially now in relation to Gough barracks in Armagh.
Two other points have received no consideration by the Government on the Floor of the House or in Committee. What is the Government's attitude to lateral entry, and what arrangements have been made for secondment from the Garda Siochana? Again, those are recommendations in the Patten report.
I have one more point that I would like the Secretary of State to address. We all saw the trauma in this country surrounding the Stephen Lawrence murder, and we all saw how long it took for it to be dealt with. The murders of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill have not yet been subjected to inquiry. I pose this question to the Government and to ourselves: under the Policing Board envisaged by the Secretary of State, could and would inquiries such as those, if they were needed in future, ever take place?
I am opposed to the allocation of time motion. I want to make a point about a matter referred to earlier. We, as a party and as a community, want to play, for the first time in the history of the Northern Irish state, a full role in the policing of our society. We want to do that unequivocally and in the most positive way possible. However, we need clarity and certainty about what is going to happen. We need clarity about the legislation, and certainty about the implementation plan and the approach that the Government will bring to the development. To date, we do not have those. That stands in the way of our decision, and will do so until we have that clarity and certainty.
§ Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)
It is worth remembering that we are discussing the allocation of time, rather than the substantive amendments. The fact that so many hon. Members feel tempted to discuss the content of the motion shows how important it is to move to the main debate as quickly as possible.
When we last discussed an allocation of time motion on Northern Ireland, I was optimistic and the Liberal Democrats supported the Government. With the benefit of 187 hindsight, we know that, for understandable reasons and despite the generous amount of time that the Government allocated, we did not have enough time to discuss the matters before us.
I am confused by the position taken by the official Opposition. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) seemed to say that he does not see the need for discussion at all, yet Conservative Back Benchers said that we need even more time than has been allocated. I am sure that there is logic in that argument somewhere.
The ideal solution would have been a programme motion agreed among all the parties. Sadly, we do not have that. Whether the time allocated will be enough is, therefore, a matter of judgment. Perhaps we could use a little more than we have been given, but we must remember that our destiny is, to some extent, in our hands. As long as we focus on making new points and do not use the debate as an opportunity to rehearse arguments with which we have finished and over which we now have no control, we can probably make reasonable progress, even in the time—which is slightly too short—that the Government have allocated.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) described this as beastly legislation. I am not sure about that, but it is important legislation, and for that reason we must debate it fully. Let us also remember that there must be an end point—we cannot go on discussing it for the next few weeks. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect some programming for a subject on which debates have often become very long, and not always because value is being added to the points already made.
Everyone has a right to express an opinion on the time allocation motion, but as some speakers have already expressed their opinions on what will happen after the motion it makes sense for us to move on. Although I respect the right of all of us to discuss the clock, I hope that we shall now move on quickly to discuss the Bill.
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)
The beauty of following the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. £pik) is that the Liberal Democrats always say, "Let's get a move on—but not until I've spoken." That is the situation that we are in.
I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said—that the Government have discovered some new and unusual parliamentary procedure that was never used between 1979 and 1997. I recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman being present—perhaps he was asleep—for guillotine after guillotine on Bill after Bill. He was happy to be a member of the Government when that was happening. Given his experience, we can treat his comments as humbug.
On the previous occasion when we debated the Bill, we could not debate many major motions and issues. I was heartened by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that most of the amendments that we are to debate are trivial and consequential. On that basis, I am sure that the Government will accept all the amendments that I have tabled, which have the support of various hon. Members.
188 I must emphasise to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that the decision on the Bill and its content and passing are, in one sense, unimportant. What is important is what will come after the Bill—what comes of the decisions on flags and emblems, on the contents of the implementation plan and on the Hamill case. When the coroner was unable to decide what had happened in that case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent for the papers. We do not know what he has decided since, and it would be helpful if we could have a statement on that. One thing is certain: that the confidence that we are trying to achieve—
§ Mr. McNamara
The right hon. Gentleman is twittering from the Opposition Front Bench. I am pointing out that the timetable is of little relevance because many of the important matters will be decided outside of it. It would therefore be helpful to know about particular matters. As the right hon. Gentleman talked a lot about what happened in another place, which had little to do with the timetable, and as his comments on amendments moved there had little to do with it, he is the last person who should comment from a sedentary position on these matters.
Decisions that will be taken after the passage of the Bill will be far more important than some of the amendments that we have to consider. On those decisions will depend the acceptability of the Northern Ireland police service to both communities. That is certainly a subject that should be worrying those on the Treasury Bench considerably.
§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
I am sure that the House listened with interest to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). In the previous debate on the Bill, he made it clear that his party would not call on its supporters to support the new police service as it is set out in the Bill. At his party conference, as leader of his party, he said that one does not proceed by ultimatums and that the trouble with the Unionists is that we are always making ultimatums. We have heard the ultimatum from the Social Democratic and Labour party—it is a list of matters that the hon. Gentleman has said must be clarified tonight by the Secretary of State.
I oppose the timetable because there should be time. I want to discuss the issues. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—they should be discussed. Each representative, representing his constituents, should have the opportunity to discuss them, but we will not have that opportunity. We will not even reach some of the matters in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. It is only right that we put that on record. If we do not do so, at some point the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a speech and point out that we were all in the House of Commons but said nothing on the matter—as though we approved it.
We do not approve; we are wholly against the idea that Ulster representatives should not have adequate time to discuss the measure. Indeed, more time has been granted in another—unelected—place; more people from Northern Ireland who are not elected have had more time to discuss the measure than we shall have tonight.
189 Certain important matters need to be discussed; those that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh concern us. I do not understand why, in part of the UK, the buildings that house the police service cannot fly the national flag. A member of the Patten commission told us that, in future, when one enters a police station in Northern Ireland—or a police house or whatever it is to be called—one will not know whether one is in Africa, India, America or Australia. It will be so neutral that people will blink and ask, "Where am I?" Is that a form of policing that will gain acceptance from the people of Northern Ireland?
Basic principles of human rights should be prominent. I do not understand why a portrait in a police station of Her Majesty the Queen is a threat to anyone. I do not understand why a flag constitutes a threat. If it does, why do not those who oppose it being flown say that it should be removed from this building? After all, they walk under it every time they enter Parliament. Those matters are important.
The uniform of the RUC is important too. Surely, if we are trying to institute a form of policing in Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to those who believe in law and order—those who do not believe in law and order will not accept it anyway—we should not outrage the citizens of Northern Ireland who do not agree with the measures. I was assured that the Patten commission was to find a means whereby the majority of the majority and the majority of the minority could agree. The majority of the majority do not agree with the Bill; it seems that the majority of the minority do not agree with it either. The Patten report is a failure by its own standards; no amount of doctoring it will change that.
The Government have spun the idea that the report is in its implementation stage and that all will be well—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is putting a case that could be put when the amendments are before the House, rather than during the timetable motion—[Interruption.] Order. I am calling the hon. Gentleman to order. Hon. Members should not point across the Chamber.
§ Rev. Ian Paisley
I am arguing why we should discuss these matters. I am sorry that I did not make that clear to you, Mr. Speaker. I am arguing not the rights or wrongs of the issues but that we should be able to discuss them. As an hon. Gentleman has argued that the flag should be removed from police stations, and that was completely in order, I should be in order when I point out that I do not agree and should like to discuss such matters. That is my argument. When we come to the marrow, I am sure that you will be under no misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, about which side we are coming from.
The length of time spent on the current debate does not matter; it will not change the fact that vital issues will not be touched on tonight and that elected representatives from Northern Ireland—whatever their views—will not be heard. What is more, there will be no opportunity for Members to vote on the issues, so we cannot express our democratic right to show what we think about them. The right of the representatives of Northern Ireland to have their say on the Bill is being taken away, because the Northern Ireland devolved powers do not cover security or the police.
190 My plea to the House is that it should give the elected representatives of Northern Ireland the right to move their amendments, to discuss them, to divide the House on them and to record their stand on the issue. That is all we ask, but we shall not get it. Even if I were to talk for the rest of the allocated hour—I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not do so—it would make no difference; the guillotine will come down and that will be that.
I have been a Member for about 30 years, and one has only to lift the mutilated Order Paper to find nearly three pages that seek to explain the ins and outs that the Government have used to ensure that there is no loophole and that everything is fine-tuned to prevent representatives of Northern Ireland from being able to express their views—no matter what they are—on the vital issue of policing.
Policing is vital to every individual. It might interest the House to know that, in the past four weeks, more of Northern Ireland's prominent citizens have been visited by the police and told that they and their families are in grave danger. The security threat is greater than ever. Therefore, that threat should be met by the House acting democratically, and the voices from that community should be given the right to have their say and vote for what they think is right for the Province.
§ Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire)
I do not intend to detain the House for long. I had the honour of being a member of the Government in two Administrations who, from time to time, used the guillotine. I do not object in principle to it being used, although we never even fantasised about the sort of use and centralised control that has become normal for this Government.
I remind the Minister that, with one or two notable exceptions, I have always broadly supported the Patten recommendations, so I am not ideologically opposed in principle to what the Government are seeking to do. However, the Government told us that they were primarily trying to do two things: they were trying to use the peace to reform the police service, and they were trying to use the Bill to persuade members of the nationalist community to join the police. My concern is that the timetable motion will not give us the time to explore either of those issues properly.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was right when he told the House that all the evidence and all the intelligence shows that the Province is moving in the direction not of peace but of tension and—God forbid—the possibility of more violence. Given that, it is hard to understand the Government's justification for not permitting the House the time necessary to debate the amendments that address the first of the central planks—that the peace would be used as an opportunity to reform the police service.
The second declared aim was that the Bill would enable the representatives and advocates of the nationalist and republican traditions to join the police service. That is not going to happen, because the SDLP has not signed up; Sinn Fein has certainly not signed up and, as a member of the British-Irish interparliamentary body, I heard the Taoiseach himself say in Galway a few weeks ago that he was not signed up.
In those circumstances, the House needs time to explore the issues. On that point, I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Whatever 191 conclusion he or I might reach after such an exploration is not the issue in this debate. He and I agree that more time is necessary on the central, secondary plank of the Government's legislation, but that time will not be made available.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said one other thing with which I agree—that consideration of the Bill had become increasingly fractious. We have heard echoes of that already, and we are only 39 minutes into a debate on the timetable. If the timetable motion is rammed through and rigorously enforced, as I expect it will be, the fractiousness will increase. It will persist in Northern Ireland long after our debates are forgotten. That defeats the third main plank of the Secretary of State's intention for the legislation, which was to create confidence in the police force.
The Secretary of State cannot generate confidence if everyone is feeling fractious about the process of legislation. It is because I do not believe that it is in the best interests of my homeland that that fractiousness should get in the way of the generation of confidence that, when the time comes to express an opinion on this supplemental timetable motion, I will oppose it.
§ Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)
I could not disagree more fundamentally with the conclusions of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). He made many valid points, but I shall support the timetable motion because I believe that the time has come for action and reform. It is clear to anyone who reads the Bill that it envisages major changes in the policing of Northern Ireland. I was privileged to be one of a small number of Members of Parliament who, on a recent cross-party visit to the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), talked to people of all views in Northern Ireland.
It was clear to that group that, as we know from debates in the House on Northern Ireland subjects, views are strongly held in Northern Ireland and that one could never please everyone in one Bill. Certainly it was clear that the Belfast agreement, which was the grandparent of the Bill, was the subject of much compromise. Some in the House to this day complain about issues that they could not accept, but the agreement obtained majority support from the people of Northern Ireland.
Similarly, the Patten report represented compromises. It is clear that some of the issues that Patten raised were not accepted. The Bill, which is the son—or daughter—of Patten, can be interpreted as satisfying people's requirements or not, according to where they come from. The consensus among members of the group who visited Northern Ireland a week or two ago was that it was now time for the reforms to take place. It is too early to talk about the Bill achieving something.
My personal position is that discussing the Bill further or being tempted to go into a ping-pong game of amendments with the other place and thereby hold up the Bill would do a major disservice to the people of Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable made it clear in his discussions that what was needed was to get ahead and demonstrate that the reforms in the Bill were appropriate and could be implemented in a way that satisfied the main requirements on both sides of the argument.
192 I shall support the timetable motion because I believe that we should avoid further ping-pong debates on the detail. I have heard the main arguments time and time again both in this Chamber and in my office, on the relay system, and it is now time for practicalities. We should now consider the detail of the Lords amendments, agree with them and give the Bill a fair wind.
§ Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley)
I join other hon. Members who are opposing the timetable motion, because I believe that there are important issues to do with policing in Northern Ireland that we need to debate, but which we shall not have the opportunity to discuss tonight; and this may be, and probably will be, the final opportunity in the House to address these issues before we move beyond the legislation.
I wish that we had the opportunity tonight to address issues such as the name of the new police service and the symbols. My views are well known, as are those of my colleagues: we wish to retain the title Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have yet to hear any representative of the nationalist community articulate why the present symbol—the cap badge—is unacceptable. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against the inclusion of the harp and the shamrock as two of the three symbols embodied in the cap badge of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I simply tell the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), "You cannot airbrush out the identity of the two political traditions of Northern Ireland, and the idea that we can neutralise Northern Ireland bears no resemblance to reality." I have yet to hear a coherent argument from nationalists as to why they oppose the green uniform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Perhaps they want an orange one. I do not know; they have not said. There is a need for a serious debate about the name and the symbols, and I have yet to be convinced by anyone that there is a need to change these key aspects—apart from political expediency.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also mentioned a number of murders and deaths in Northern Ireland, into which he has been calling for a public inquiry. He seeks to link the Royal Ulster Constabulary to those murders in calling for that inquiry and in raising those issues in today's debate. Then he says that he wants speedy implementation of key aspects of the Bill, such as the extension of the RUC Reserve.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but I certainly am in my constituency, that downsizing poses major problems in coping with the growing amount of criminality in Northern Ireland. He may not have the same amount of criminality in his constituency as I do in mine, but I suspect from my limited knowledge of South Armagh that he does; so how does he suggest that in speedily downsizing our police in Northern Ireland we shall be able to cope with these problems—never mind, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, the growing security problem in Northern Ireland?
If I had the opportunity to speak on these issues tonight, I would be urging the Secretary of State to adopt the utmost caution in proceeding to implement the extension of the full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
Order. The hon. Gentleman may get an opportunity to catch my eye later this evening, but at the moment he must direct his remarks to the allocation of time.
§ Mr. Donaldson
I am dealing with the issue of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am lamenting the fact that I shall not have adequate time to deal with these issues; that is my argument. If I had time this evening to deal with the implementation of the Bill, which I believe that we should debate because there are important issues to be addressed, I would be telling the Secretary of State that he should be cautious about downsizing the police in the context of an increased security problem and growing criminality. Those issues must be properly addressed.
The problem is greater even than that. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke about inquiries into a number of murders. Well, I tell him and the Secretary of State that there is a concern in Northern Ireland that resources are being misallocated. I use for example the murder of two police officers in Lurgan, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble): constables John Graham and David Johnston. Constable Graham's mother walked into Lurgan RUC station recently to discover that 50 detectives from an English police force were investigating the murder of Rosemary Nelson. When she asked how many detectives were involved in the investigation of the murder of her son and his colleague, she was told: two.
I simply ask the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the Secretary of State whether the life of those two police constables is worth so little that so few resources are allocated to the investigation of their murder when a huge number of detectives are allocated to investigating the murder of the solicitor Rosemary Nelson. We should address such issues, because they are about policing. Are the police not entitled to have the same resources for the investigation of the murder of their colleagues as have been allocated to the investigation of the murder of Rosemary Nelson? If we had had the time, I hope that we could have considered such issues.
Implementation of the proposals is important not just to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh; it is important to the people whom I represent and the majority community in Northern Ireland. We do want to be left without protection, and we do not want police numbers to be decimated when republican and loyalist terrorists are running about murdering people. They have mortar bombs and are attempting to blow up police stations, so if I had had the time, I would have urged on the Secretary of State the utmost caution. He must not make the protection and the security of the people of Northern Ireland a bargaining chip to try to buy off people such as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on the issue of police reforms.
Security and the protection of the people of Northern Ireland must be the Secretary of State's top priority when the Bill and the proposals that flow from it are implemented. He must not, in any circumstance, compromise the security and protection of the people of Northern Ireland. If that means retaining the RUC Reserve until the security threat has been dealt with, that should be done.
§ Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)
In discussing curtailing the time available for the debate, we should consider the mischief that the Bill is intended to cure. The Bill is intended to provide a police service that is supported on all sides of the divided Province. It is vital that all sides are heard, because there are divided opinions on what sort of police service will achieve what the Bill sets out to do.
The peripatetic hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) told the House that he was in a position of great authority, because he was part of a group that made a lightning visit to Northern Ireland. Some of us have lived our entire lives in Northern Ireland, so, with the greatest respect to him, we perhaps have a little more information about what is happening there.
As many judges of vast experience know, when parties have different opinions and contend forcefully that their views should be upheld, it is vital that one obtain their acquiescence in the decision ultimately arrived at. That means that the contending views must be heard, discussed and scrutinised. However, to suggest, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk did, that the time has now come for action, and that an arbitrary decision should be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland, is an extraordinary way to achieve compromise or to obtain an entire community's acquiescence in what the Government may do.
Even though the Government may impose a guillotine and may force the Bill through with the help of their Back Benchers, we should all bear in mind the fact that, if the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and other parties do not support the Bill, it will fail to cure the mischief for which it is intended to be a panacea. By striking out the parties through the guillotine motion and preventing them from discussing the Bill in great detail, and from airing their grievances, or at least from having an opportunity to say why they disagree with or support an amendment, the Government are defeating the Bill's purpose. People unheard will not easily agree to a measure that they believe has no prospect of bringing about a degree of social peace.
§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
There are important issues to cover, so I shall be brief and raise one general matter.
When we finish the hour's debate and have a Division, about five hours will be left to discuss the 100 important amendments to which the Minister referred. That is just three minutes for each one. The guillotine motion is not something that the House should be considering. It should remind the House of the length to which the Government will go to appease armed terrorists.
The guillotine motion reflects the Government's determination to dismember a brave body of men and women. It reminds us that the timetable is being dictated by Sinn Fein-IRA. It does not arise from the peace process, which, if I understood it correctly, decided that the Bill would follow decommissioning. Not a single bullet or ounce of Semtex has been decommissioned, but the Government, dancing to the tune of the killers, are prepared to force the House to deal with 100 amendments, at three minutes an amendment.
§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)
When the House debated the remaining stages of the Bill under a guillotine motion on 11 July, prior consideration was not shown to the Select Committee and it was not advised that that would happen. As 12 July is a fixed rather than a moveable feast, most Committee members missed the debate. The Secretary of State was good enough to assure us that that would never recur, and I am grateful to him on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the guillotine on 11 July seriously interfered with debate. The other place is developing a high conceit as the universal scrutineer of legislation that has slipped through not merely unscathed but even unconsidered by this lower but elected House. Parliament's reputation is ill served by the Government's cavalier disregard of this House's scrutiny, and both legislation and reputation are casualties of that casualness. If the hon. Gentleman's laundry list of issues that were left unconsidered in the previous debate on this Bill is right, it would be better if they left the House this time properly scrubbed and not, in the happy words of the title of the autobiography of my noble Friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, "Without Benefit of Laundry".
When I opened the Second Reading debate in 1993 on the National Lottery etc. Bill I had time to give way more than 30 times. It will be for historians to judge the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, but I suspect that it was better, rather than worse, for having the time to be dealt with properly and for Ministers not falling back on the familiar mantra that there was no time. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes is a better counsel for naval warfare than it is for sensitive discourse on delicate subjects.
§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
The first guillotine on the Bill when it initially came to the House was perhaps the most notorious of this Parliament. As we have heard from both sides of the House, people who are intimately involved in the process have been denied the opportunity to discuss something that is fundamental to their communities. That is a disgrace, but the Government no longer care. This is edict, not debate. We have no justification for being here other than to represent those communities that sent us here. Without that function or ability, we are nothing, and the Government are a shallow, wasted thing who impose their will on this country and on Northern Ireland.
§ It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 July].
§ The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 171.198
|Division No. 344]||[4.50 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Atherton, Ms Candy|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Atkins, Charlotte|
|Ainger, Nick||Austin, John|
|Alexander, Douglas||Banks, Tony|
|Allen, Graham||Barnes, Harry|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Battle, John|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Bayley, Hugh|
|Ashton, Joe||Beard, Nigel|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Follett, Barbara|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Benton, Joe||Galloway, George|
|Best, Harold||Gapes, Mike|
|Betts, Clive||Gardiner, Barry|
|Blackman, Liz||Gerrard, Neil|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Blizzard, Bob||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Godsiff, Roger|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Goggins, Paul|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Golding, Mrs Lin|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Browne, Desmond||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Burgon, Colin||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Grocott, Bruce|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Grogan, John|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Hanson, David|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Healey, John|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Cann, Jamie||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Caplin, Ivor||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Caton, Martin||Heppell, John|
|Cawsey, Ian||Hill, Keith|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Chaytor, David||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clapham, Michael||Hope, Phil|
|Clark, Dr Lynda||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|(Edinburgh Pentlands)||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Hurst, Alan|
|Clwyd, Ann||Hutton, John|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Coleman, Iain||Illsley, Eric|
|Colman, Tony||Ingram, Rt Hon Adam|
|Connarty, Michael||Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)|
|Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)||Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Cooper, Yvette||Jamieson, David|
|Corston, Jean||Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)|
|Cousins, Jim||Johnson, Miss Melaine|
|Cox, Tom||(Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Cranston, Ross||Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)|
|Crausby, David||Jones, Helen (Warmington N)|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)|
|Cummings, John||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|(Copeland)||Kelly, Ms Ruth|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tty S)||Kemp, Fraser|
|Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire||Kidney, David|
|Dalyell, Tam||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Darvill, Keith||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)|
|Davidson, Ian||Kingham, Ms Tees|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Kumar, Dr Ashok|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Lawrence, Mrs Jackie|
|Dawson, Hilton||Lepper, David|
|Dismore, Andrew||Leslie, Christopher|
|Dobbin, Jim||Levitt, Tom|
|Dobson, Rt Hon Frank||Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)|
|Doran, Frank||Lock, David|
|Dowd, Jim||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Drew, David||McCafferty, Ms Chris|
|Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)||McDonagh, Siobhain|
|Edwards, Huw||Macdonald, Calum|
|Efford, Clive||McGuire, Mrs Anne|
|Etherington, Bill||McIsaac, Shona|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank||McKenna, Mrs Rosemary|
|Fitzpatrick, Jim||Mckinlay, Andrew|
|Flint, Caroline||McNulty, Tony|
|Flynn, Paul||MacShane, Denis|
|McWalter, Tony||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McWilliam, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Mallaber, Judy||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Smith, Miss Geraldine|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||(Morecambe & Lunesdale)|
|Martlew, Eric||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Maxton, John||Soley, Clive|
|Meale, Alan||Spellar, John|
|Merron, Gillian||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Miller, Andrew||Stevenson, George|
|Mitchell, Austin||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Moffatt, Laura||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Mountford, Kali||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Mudie, George||Stringer, Graham|
|Mullin, Chris||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug||(Dewsbury)|
|Norris, Dan||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Olner, Bill||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Pearson, Ian||Timms, Stephen|
|Pendry, Tom||Tipping, Paddy|
|Pickthall, Colin||Todd, Mark|
|Pike, Peter L||Trickett, Jon|
|Plaskitt, James||Truswell, Paul|
|Pollard, Kerry||Turner, Dennis (Wolverhton SE)|
|Pond, Chris||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Pound, Stephen||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)||Turner, Neil (Wigan)|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Purchase, Ken||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Quinn, Lawrie||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff||White, Brian|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Rowlands, Ted||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Roy, Frank||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Ruane, Chris||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Ruddock, Joan||Wilson, Brian|
|Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)||Winnick, David|
|Ryan, Ms Joan||Worthington, Tony|
|Sarwar, Mohammad||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Savidge, Malcolm||Wright, Tony (Cannock)|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Wyatt, Derek|
|Sheerman, Barry||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Mr. David Clelland and|
|Shipley, Ms Debra||Mr. Greg Pope.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Brazier, Julian|
|Allan, Richard||Breed, Colin|
|Amess, David||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Browning, Mrs Angela|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)|
|Baker, Norman||Burnett, John|
|Ballard, Jackie||Burns, Simon|
|Beggs, Roy||Burstow, Paul|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||(NE Fife)|
|Bercow, John||Cash, William|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Chapman, Sir Sydney|
|Blunt, Crispin||(Chipping Barnet)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Chidgey, David|
|Boswell, Tim||Clappison, James|
|Brady, Graham||Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)|
|Brake, Tom||Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth|
|Brand, Dr Peter||(Rushcliffe)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Collins, Tim||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Cotter, Brian||Madel, Sir David|
|Cran, James||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Maples, John|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian|
|Davies, Quentin (Grantham)||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||Moore, Michael|
|Day, Stephen||Moss, Malcolm|
|Donaldson, Jeffrey||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Norman, Archie|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Oaten, Mark|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||OBrien, Stephen (Eddisbury)|
|Evans, Nigel||Öpik, Lembit|
|Faber, David||Page, Richard|
|Fallon, Michael||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Pickles, Eric|
|Flight, Howard||Prior, David|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Randall, John|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Fraser, Christopher||Rendel, David|
|Gale, Roger||Robathan, Andrew|
|Gamier, Edward||Robertson, Laurence|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)|
|Gibb, Nick||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Gidley, Sandra||Ross, William (E Londy)|
|Gill, Christopher||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Gillen, Mrs Cheryl||Ruffley, David|
|Gorrie, Donald||Sanders, Adrian|
|Green, Damian||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Greenway, John||Shepherd, Richard|
|Grieve, Dominic||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Hague, Rt Hon William||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Soames, Nicholas|
|Hammond, Philip||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Harvey, Nick||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Hawkins, Nick||Spring, Richard|
|Heald, Oliver||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)||Steen, Anthony|
|Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas||Streeter, Gary|
|Horam, John||Stuneel, Andrew|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Swayne, Desmond|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Syms, Robert|
|Hunter, Andrew||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Keetch, Paul||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles||Thompson, William|
|(Ross Skye & Inverness W)||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Key, Robert||Townend, John|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Tredinnick, David|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Trimble, Rt Hon David|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Trimble, Rt Hon David|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Tyler, Paul|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Walker, Cecil|
|Lansley, Andrew||Waterson, Nigel|
|Leigh, Edward||Webb, Steve|
|Letwin, Oliver||Wells, Bowen|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Lidington, David||Whittingdale, John|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Livsey, Richard||Wilkinson, John|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Willetts, David|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Willis, Phil|
|Loughton, Tim||Wilshire, David|
|Luff, Peter||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|McCartney, Robert (N Down)||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|McCrea, Dr William||Yeo, Tim|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|McIntosh, Miss Anne||Tellers for the Noes:|
|MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew||Mr. Keith Simpson and|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.199
§ That the Order of the House [11th July] shall be supplemented as follows:—