---

Column 274

Thornton, Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Wallace, James

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, John

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Mike

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Mr. David Maclean.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Battle, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Boateng, Paul

Bradley, Keith

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Buchan, Norman

Canavan, Dennis

Clay, Bob

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cryer, Bob

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Flannery, Martin

Galloway, George

Gordon, Mildred

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Heffer, Eric S.

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hume, John

Lamond, James

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

McAllion, John

McCartney, Ian

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mallon, Seamus

Meale, Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mullin, Chris

Nellist, Dave

Pike, Peter L.

Primarolo, Dawn

Sedgemore, Brian

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Wall, Pat

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Eddie McGrady and

Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

---

Column 275

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise-- (

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of-- (

(i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate ; and

(ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act ; and

(b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.-- [Mr. Alan Howarth.] 10.26 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I do not think that the money resolution should go through without comment. As I understand it, we have 45 minutes in which to examine the pros and cons of the money resolution and I have always understood that that is one of the jobs of the House. It is clear that many Conservative Members are not interested in this because they are chatting. The hon. Members who are chatting by the Bar do not seem to be interested in one of the basic functions of the House--the scrutiny of expenditure. The financial effects of the Bill are described on page V of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I should like to raise a few questions that, no doubt-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate kindly leave quietly?

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Buzz off.

Mr. Cryer : I am most grateful. I would not use words like "buzz off", which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said most clearly, but I am grateful for your efforts, Mr. Speaker, and his. I realise that my hon. Friend wanted to be helpful in exercising some scrutiny.

Everyone treats money resolutions as some sort of joke and the House passes through hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds on the nod. If we were discussing a Bill that concerned social security, Conservative Members would not take that view. They would try to screw every last penny from the poorest in the country. If they can do that with Department of Social Security legislation, they can look at all the other legislation that goes through the House. Although I suspect that this legislation does not involve large expenditure, the paragraph in the explanatory and financial memorandum is so vague that it behoves Ministers to provide some more detailed information. Page v of the introduction states, in connection with terrorist finances :

"there are likely to be some additional investigation and prosecution costs for the police and the prosecution services ; additional costs arising out of the provision of court services ; extra legal aid ; the costs of the receivers appointed to realise land subject to forfeiture orders ; and possibly some limited expenditure on compensation."

---

Column 276

The introduction then states that it is difficult to make such calculations. I cannot believe that the Home Office has not calculated an amount of money that would give some idea of the level of public expenditure.

I wonder what sort of compensation is envisaged in the paragraphs dealing with finance--possibly some limited expenditure on compensation. We need to ask what sort of compensation it is because the legislation envisages that some land or property might be seized in error and compensation will therefore have to be paid. The House should know.

---