Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Robert Smith:
The Minister is making a point about trying to deal with some of the individual concerns, but the hon. Member for Hayes and
3 Feb 2005 : Column 1035
Harlington raised his concerns on the Floor of the House for the rest of the House to be aware that there was a problem in the Bill. She is now proposing to deal with those concerns at a private meeting. Will the response from that be put in the Library or before the House so that hon. Members can see it? It is important that there is a record in Hansard for the courts to see how Ministers have justified their legislation. Hansard provides the record of which arguments they used to justify their case.
Fiona Mactaggart: As I understand it, the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington are not necessarily with the proposal in the Bill, but with the impact of the proposal on people who are current employees. It is appropriate for such a matter to be dealt with in this way. I hope that my offer of a meeting will deal with his concerns.
I am struck that hon. Members, while raising concerns about the amount of time available for debate, have felt that the programme motion focuses on the right five key issues. After all, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) described the measure as a Bill of 220 pages with which he agreed with all but two. We therefore sought in the programme motion to focus on the provisions on animal rights extremists, the status of staff in the Serious Organised Crime Agency, protests in Parliament square, incitement and intercept as evidence.
Hon. Members have raised concerns about the use of intercept as evidence and the risk that the time taken for voting might mean a relatively short time for debating intercept. The matter was not included in the original Bill but introduced through Opposition amendments. During our proceedings, the Opposition specifically asked for a Home Office response, which has been provided and deals with many of the concerns that were raised.
Mr. Garnier: The Under-Secretary says that the Opposition raised intercept and that she believes that it has been tackled adequately. If the mathematics and anticipation of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) are correct, we will have about half an hour to discuss it on the Floor of the House. That is where legislation should be debated. It may well be that the usual channels have held all sorts of interesting discussions and that Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers have proposed ideas but the Floor of the House, not private meetings or secret, back-door deals, is where public legislation should be dealt with publicly. Does not the Under-Secretary understand the purpose of the constitution and Parliament?
Fiona Mactaggart: Of course I do. I was highlighting the fact that the issue was raised during the Bill's development and that it did not initially form part of the measure. The Government are eager to respond to concerns that were raised during the process of considering the Bill.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The simple fact is that the Government have included the issue in the Bill. Many of
3 Feb 2005 : Column 1036
us would say, "Good. Well done", but we want to discuss it. Half an hour for hon. Members of all partiescannot the Under-Secretary understand that the timetable is far too restricted? Cannot she take away the motion and give us a second day?
Fiona Mactaggart: I do not believe that that is necessary, because the Committee that considered the Bill managed fully to debate all the issues without any guillotine or knives. The Committee went through all the business. The Government offered additional time in Committee, which was not necessary. We have fully debated the Bill in Committee.
The programme motion focuses on appropriate matters. It is clear from today's contributions that hon. Members are confident that the motion identifies the aspects that they wish to debate on the Floor of the House. Consequently, I am confident that the focus is appropriate. As has been said, the Bill has in large measure attracted support across the House. It has been vigorously debated and there will be a full five and a half hours debate on Report. I emphasise that the time allowed will not be reduced in the event of a statement.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Under-Secretary at least introduce a motion so that the Divisions are not taken into account? We will not get five and a half hours of debate.
Fiona Mactaggart: I will not and I hope that hon. Members will do their best to ensure that they vote promptly[Interruption.] By doing that, they can help to achieve[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The House must come to order.
Fiona Mactaggart: I hope that hon. Members will vote swiftly to ensure that we get adequate time for the debate.
Sir Robert Smith: Our constituents often want to know which way we voted on controversial matters. The programme motion suggests that we should not vote on them because that means we cannot debate them.
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is utterly mistaken if he believes that I implied that. I did not. I urged hon. Members not to linger in the Division Lobby. Some hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate know that they have been responsible for doing that on some occasions.
There is broad cross-party support for much of the Bill. As a result of the Government amendments that are tabled for Report, to which hon. Members have referred, I hope and expect that disagreement will continue to reduce. I am therefore confident that one day for Report is adequate.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to withdraw the amendment. Carving out a dedicated slot for the matter that he wishes to debate on Report would mean competing with the important issues that other hon. Members have raised. I believe that his anxieties, which I know to be genuine, can be
3 Feb 2005 : Column 1037
properly tackled in a meeting with the Minister. I therefore hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
John McDonnell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 124.
That the Programme Order of 7th December 2004 relating to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill be varied as follows
2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
3. The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to Clause 122 and Schedule 10; new Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to blasphemy. | One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. |
New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings. | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. |
New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities. | Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. |
New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the status and powers of staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. | Four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. |
New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to behaviour in vicinity of Parliament Square; remaining proceedings on consideration. | Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. |
4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |