|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on the second allotted day;
(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.
|Allotted day||Proceedings||Time for conclusion of proceedings|
|First day||New Clauses relating to the duration of the Act and reports to Parliament, Clause 123, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 20||6.00 p.m.|
|Clauses 21 to 35||8.30 p.m.|
|Clauses 106 to 119||10.00 p.m.|
|Second day||Clauses 36 to 42||6.30 p.m.|
|Clauses 43 to 58, Schedule 5, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 6, Clauses 71 to 87||8.00 p.m.|
|Clauses 88 to 100, Schedule 7, Clauses 101 to 105, Clauses 120 and 121, Schedule 8, Clause 122, Clauses 124 and 125, Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules||11.00 p.m.|
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): On a point of order, Sir Alan. I believe that you may, in another guise, have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was inadvertently unfair to the UnderSecretary of State for the Home Department in asking her to explain why the Bill had not been given enough time in the House. He would have done better to ask the Leader of the House to give that answer but was unable to do so because the right hon. Gentleman, although in the House, was not in the Chamber. Is it possible for him to be in the Chamber so that this question may be asked of him?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, which Ministers are on the Bench to answer questions is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that his point has been noted; a similar point was made somewhat earlier.
(1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.
(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide
(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;
(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;
(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.
(3) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.[Mr. Letwin.]
'(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of this Act as they relate to terrorism.'.
'(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of the Parts of this Act which relate to terrorism.'.
Mr. Letwin: I am not privy to the discussions that may have gone on between the Government and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but from listening to the interchange during the debate on the programme motion I sensedperhaps mistakenlythat the Government might be offering to concede on the version of new clause 6 that has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. We shall undoubtedly discover whether that is the case as we proceed.
I want specifically to point out the respects in which new clause 6, tabled jointly by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, differs from that which has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. The Committee's proposition is a huge advance on the position in the Bill. We would welcome a concession, but our viewfor reasons that I shall explainis that the Home Affairs Committee version is not tough enough to enable the House and the Government to inquire sufficiently, over succeeding years, into the effects and implications of the most controversial parts of the Bill.
Ministers will already fully understand new clause 6, but I apologise to the Committee because the drafting is inelegant and it may be opaque on first reading. The intent, however, is simple. New clause 6 is best read from back to front. The underlying intent of new clause 6(5) does not differ greatly from that of the Home Secretary. It would provide that part 4the most controversial partwould cease to have effect after a year. The Bill would give that provision a 15-month renewal clause, so although there is a significant difference between a complete lapse and a renewal and a minor difference between 15 months and a year, our underlying thoughts are similar to those of Ministers.
New clause 6(4) would apply a two-year lapse period to the second most controversial class of parts of the Billparts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13. Part 5, which covers incitement to religious hatred, might have been better included in new clause 6(5) and given only a year before it lapses, but we optedin the spirit of attempting to reach eventual consensus with the Governmentto give it and the other parts I mentioned two years before they lapse. New clause 6(3) relates to the remaining parts of the Bill except part 12. They are less controversial and we opted for a period equal to that suggested by the Home Affairs Committeefive years.
Having moved from the end of the new clause towards the front, I beg the Committee to move from the front towards the middle. New clause 6(1) and (2) describe the flexibility that we wish to give the Home Secretary, within the constraints that I have just describedone-year, two-year and five-year lapses for parts of descending order of controversyto renew parts or to let them lapse and bring them back. The only other effect of new clause 6(1) would be on part 12the implementation of the OECD convention on bribery and corruptionwhich would be left intact with no lapse period, because it is a matter of cross-party agreement and I am reasonably confident that such minor amendment as we have proposed will eventually be the subject of agreement, if merited. It is a purely technical amendment.
The sum result is that we wish the Committee to recogniseand if it does not, that the other place will do sothat the necessary constraints under which Ministers have laboured in producing a Bill at high speed and under which the House and the other place labour in scrutinising it at even higher speed, as we have already heard, should be matched by an exceptional rigour in forcing the Executive to bring back sections of the Act, as it will be, for fundamental renewal. The renewals would be more frequent the more controversial the provisions. I hope that we can reach consensus on that point. Many issues will be debated in the next few hours, next Monday and in the other place.
We ought to be able to agree that it is as much in the interests of the Government as it is in the interests of Parliament and of the people that there should be the opportunity to discover whether the intent of the BillI have always admitted throughout these proceedings and in all public pronouncements that the Home Secretary's intent is noble and justifiedis reflected in the outcomes it provides.