| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.
Recommittal
As the House knows, yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained in a statement to the House why, in the current security circumstances following the calling off of the IRA ceasefire, he had been persuaded of the need to confer additional powers on the police. He described his proposals yesterday, and they are set out in detail in the draft Bill which was also published yesterday, and which, in the past 10 minutes, has been metamorphosed into an actual Bill and introduced in the House.
I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's view of the need for the Bill is shared by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The official Opposition have made it clear that they are satisfied with the case that has been made, and while the Liberal Democrats have, perhaps, been more delphic--I hope that that is not unfair--I think it reasonable to say that their concerns appeared to be with the procedures proposed rather with the policy itself. On the procedures, I can only say that the Government think--having made the judgment that the powers are needed--that it must be right to try to enact them before Parliament rises for Easter, rather than waiting a fortnight or more for Parliament to resume. That means that the House must complete its consideration of the Bill today, so that it can be dealt with in another place tomorrow with a view to
securing Royal Assent tomorrow evening. The purpose of the motion is to enable the House to achieve that in a sensible and orderly way.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed):
Could not what the Leader of the House wants have been achieved--even taking into account the Home Secretary's delay in producing the Bill--if the Home Secretary had published the Bill last week, and if each day this week, including Thursday, had been used to enable us to discuss separate stages on separate days? Consultation with outside bodies could have taken place between the sittings.
Mr. Newton:
It has been necessary for full consideration to be given to these matters within Government. The policy was agreed collectively by the Government only last week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has acted with commendable speed in the wake of that, and as a result we need to transact the business in the way laid down in the motion.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West):
First, what is the most recent precedent for the Government's recommendation of the procedure that we are being asked to follow? Secondly, can the Leader of the House explain--as the Home Secretary signally failed to do yesterday--the motivation for the Bill's being rushed through the House in this way?
Mr. Newton:
I cannot immediately recall a precise precedent, but then I cannot recall precisely similar circumstances. Terrorism has been resumed in this country; the police have made clear their belief that they need these additional powers in order to have the maximum scope for combating further instances of that terrorism; and we are operating within a day or so of the Easter recess.
The hon. Gentleman made the same point in response to my business statement yesterday. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend made the case for the proposals absolutely clear in his own statement yesterday--and, indeed, that has been accepted by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North):
Everyone accepts that the Bill is very important. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify having allowed less than five minutes for the discussion of each amendment--presuming that all were selected--quite apart from any time spent on voting?
Mr. Newton:
I defend it on the basis of my general judgment that the amount of time that we have provided for discussion of the Bill and the motion--to which I shall refer in a moment--is appropriate for proper debate of the proposals in the particular circumstances, and against the background of a resumption of terrorism on the mainland.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
Over the 16 years in which I have been in the House, I have noticed that when legislation is guillotined it invariably goes wrong. Why can we not have real time in which to discuss what may--I do not know--be a perfectly valid Bill?
Mr. Newton:
Let me repeat what I just said. I think that the motion provides appropriate time in the particular
I am once again grateful, as I said yesterday, to the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the constructive manner in which they acknowledged that, and made it clear that they would not stand in the way. Perhaps I might assure them in return, particularly the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who made some cautionary comments yesterday, that it does not in any way lessen my commitment following the Jopling reforms, during which time I have worked closely with her, to achieve the progress of legislation by voluntary understandings, when circumstances are normal, through the usual channels.
The motion provides--it is already obvious that it is controversial and will no doubt be the subject of further comment--that all stages of the Bill will be completed during this sitting. It provides three hours for debate on Second Reading, and then two hours for proceedings in a Committee of the House. Report and Third Reading will end three hours after the start of the Committee stage, which should allow an hour for Third Reading, less any time spent on Divisions at the end of the Committee stage. The remaining provisions are more or less standard for such motions.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
We are today dealing with a Bill in a very unusual, if not unprecedented, manner. I should make it clear at the outset that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I said yesterday, we do not underestimate the importance of the fight against terrorism. It is on the basis of information given in security briefings to my hon. Friends that we are accepting the word of the Government that the Bill and the time scale are absolutely essential. However, I must emphasise, to the Leader of the House in particular, that our willingness to facilitate the passage of the Bill does not mean that we are happy about the position in which the Government have placed the House.
There are two separate matters. First, there is the fact that everyone--I believe--feels bounced into consideration of the legislation because of the lack of notice that has been given. More could have been done to ease that feeling among hon. Members. Secondly, there is a specific problem that the proceedings are subject to the guillotine motion that the Leader of the House has just moved.
On the need for the guillotine motion, I accept that if measures such as those in the Bill are deemed necessary on security grounds, it is reasonable for the
Government to ensure that they get legislation through the House in the required time scale. On that basis, I shall not be voting against the timetable motion. That still begs the question, however, why the House has been bounced in such a manner into considering the legislation in these difficult circumstances today. I do not believe--my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has already referred to the point--that hasty legislation is likely to be good legislation. There is always a danger that if we legislate in haste, we may implement defective provisions. As a result, all hon. Members are faced with significant difficulties. The time scale has meant that it has been very difficult for Members to table amendments. Indeed, a great deal of pressure has been put not only on Members but on Officers of the House in order for it to be feasible to consider the Bill properly today.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Is there not an immense principle involved here--that one should never guillotine legislation that has implications for civil liberties?
11.--(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |