Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill — Funeral expenses — 12 May 1999

Mr Peter Mandelson MP, Hartlepool voted with the majority (Aye).

Considered in Committee.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 30, leave out from "effect" to end of line 34 and insert "on 30th September 1999".

The amendment deserves a fair amount of consideration in light of what the Under-Secretary said in his winding-up speech on Monday night. It is intended to time-limit the life of the Bill's provisions. He said on Monday night that the Government were not all that anxious to do that, but I believe that a time provision is embodied in the words that the amendment seeks to remove. The full subsection reads:

"This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland, may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and an order under this subsection may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to .

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill .

Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out from 'person' to end.

On the face of it, the amendment looks very simple, as all amendments do. The Committee can get the flavour of it by looking at subsection (2), which states:

"Subsection (1) does not prohibit a test or procedure the purpose of which is to discover information in relation to an item where the information is sought for the purpose of establishing, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a deceased person, or how, when and where he died."

Surely, finding out, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a person and how, when and where he died flies straight in the face of such a provision. There seems to be a contradiction, which must be resolved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 43, at end insert--

'(4) In this section "premises" includes any place.'.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman:

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2-- Compensation for families of victims --

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a detailed examination of the Bill today. Only a few amendments were tabled, but we had a wide-ranging debate from which we have all learned something. We also had a useful debate on Second Reading.

The Government's position is clear: we want to end the suffering of the families of "The Disappeared". We fully recognise that some right hon. and hon. Members, who are equally concerned about the families, have worries about the protections in the Bill. Some hon. Members are also concerned about the Bill in case no information comes forward and we are duped by those who have promised to provide information. However, we examined that point in considerable detail and discussed at whose door the blame would lie.

Those hon. Members who are critical of the Bill see it as a risk not worth taking. In answering the points raised by the amendments that were tabled, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had to strike a delicate balance in reaching judgments on the totality of the Bill. We have tried to supply the facilities and the mechanisms to ensure that if any information is provided, we can act on it.

12 May 1999 : Column 377

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 5.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con0 100.6%
DUP0 1050.0%
Ind1 0050.0%
Lab301 (+2 tell) 0073.0%
LDem22 0047.8%
UUP0 3 (+2 tell)050.0%
Total:324 5052.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive