---

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that although the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn)—he is in his place—has special expertise in this area, he did not serve on the Committee, whereas two Back-Bench Government supporters from Scotland did, even though the Bill does not apply to Scotland? This point surely relates to precisely the argument that my right hon. Friend is making. Today constitutes an opportunity for experts in this House who have not yet had a chance to contribute to do so, yet the time available for debate will be limited to one hour. I am thinking in particular of Members who represent points of view on which Committee members received a great deal of advice. Despite that, no Committee member supported the case put forward by concerned lobby groups and members of the public.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point on which I will allow myself to be drawn briefly. He is referring to the mysterious ways in which membership of Committees is decided by this House—or, indeed, by the usual channels. The important point is that, sadly, it is therefore likely that members serving on Committees dealing with Bills such as this might not represent views generally held throughout the House. In particular, as my hon. Friend suggested, distinguished Members such as the hon. Member for Newport, West—he is present now and smiling at me, and I am smiling at him—have a unique contribution to make. Today's debate should be an opportunity for such Members. It should not be time-limited by the Government.

Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) touched on a serious issue relating to Northern Ireland. I have a letter from the Northern Ireland Office confirming that permission has been sought and obtained for the extension to Northern Ireland of certain provisions in the Bill. However, the right hon. Member, who always reads legislation very carefully, will have noted that clause 24(6) makes it clear that the Bill

"extends to England and Wales only."

That makes it even more unfortunate that more time has not been set aside this evening to discuss the extension of certain provisions to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an important and different point about the extent to which the Bill covers Northern Ireland. We need to be aware that changes may be made to it even at this late stage. Sadly, as she says, it is doubtful whether we will have a further opportunity properly to explore the issue. The hon. Lady could be lucky if the Minister gives way to her when she winds up the debate; she might even
 
22 Feb 2005 : Column 243
 
have a brief and peremptory answer to her question. However, that is not the way in which we should conduct our affairs, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be a matter of a nod and a wink here and a moment there. These matters deserve proper deliberation and consideration by Members of this House. The programme motion will simply not allow that.

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised an issue that the Minister certainly must answer, and I believe that it should be answered during the course of her remarks this evening. Clauses 4 and 6 specifically relate to powers in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I raised in Committee a matter that the hon. Lady had mentioned about the nomenclature of police officers in Northern Ireland. If the qualifying clause at the end precludes the Bill's extension to Northern Ireland, it shows once again the poor drafting and haste with which the Bill has been knocked up, thrown together and slipped through the House.

Mr. Forth: I suspect that the best opportunity for the hon. Member for North Down may be on Third Reading, when there may be a chance for the House to press the Minister on matters that are not necessarily covered by the selected groups of amendments on Report. Subject to your discretion and decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be appropriate to pursue the matter of Northern Ireland with the Minister on Third Reading. In my view, that would be entirely appropriate.

Key issues in the Bill—including the selling of drugs to children, the impact of drugs on driving, the role of the Secretary of State and, not least, the classification of cannabis—are of great substance and importance in their own right. Members who did not sit in Committee—not least, the hon. Member for Newport, West—should now have their opportunity to contribute to the debate in the Chamber, but I suspect that none of that is going to happen. There will be no proper opportunity for debate and Members at large will have little chance to contribute. Sadly, that will once again make an absolute nonsense and a farce of the proper role of the House of Commons in scrutinising legislation.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Is it not appropriate for the Opposition, including Liberal Democrat as well as Conservative and Unionist Members, to make representations through the Minister to the Government to the effect that they should urgently review the programming procedures of the House to meet the perfectly reasonable deliberations and recommendations of the Procedure Committee? I believe that the Minister wants good legislation, but she will not get the best legislation if we proceed in this way.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is characteristically more generous than I am, as I gain no sense that the Minister is anxious for any proper or detailed scrutiny of the Bill. In fact, I gain almost the opposite sense—that what we are being allowed to do today is almost too much for the Minister to bear and that she wants us to nod it all through so that she and her colleagues can get away as early as possible. That was my impression, but we may hear more from the Minister either on Report or on
 
22 Feb 2005 : Column 244
 
Third Reading about whether she is really enthusiastic, as my hon. Friend suggests, about allocating more time to debate the important issues in the House. I will believe it when I see it: that is all that I can say.

I make no apology for that, as this system of so-called timetabling has confronted us time after time with the absurdity that we are not able to discharge fully and properly our responsibilities as Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. The system makes life easier for the Government and makes nonsense of our role. That saddens me.

6 pm

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): I had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee considering this Bill, and I listened with great interest to the contributions that were made. I listened with special interest to what the Minister had to say in respect of a measure that is not particularly controversial. The Bill has received substantial all-party support, with the few exceptions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) alluded a moment ago.

I do not understand what is going on. Why on earth is it necessary to apply a timetable motion to a Bill that has all-party support and which is not controversial? Furthermore, many hon. Members are extremely interested in the subject of drugs and know a great deal about it, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, only a few of them were fortunate enough to serve on the Committee. As a result, many hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate this evening and they might have hoped against hope for a debate on Report that was not timetabled. They will have been sorely disappointed when they saw the business of the House for this week, as it was clear that an extremely tight timetable would leave little chance for a constructive and positive contribution.

Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland? The Assembly there was suspended in October 2002, and this House alone has responsibility for the criminal law in Northern Ireland. Does not it therefore ill behove this Government to rush through legislation in an area as important as drugs control? I remind the House that cannabis use is the main drug problem in Northern Ireland, yet there is no time for proper discussion of the extension of the Bill's key provisions to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am indeed aware of what is happening in terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee early on in this Parliament. I am aware of the background, therefore, and the point that she makes is absolutely spot on. Given that the Assembly is suspended, surely the Government should be doubly cautious, sensitive and understanding when it comes to the needs of the Province. They should therefore ensure that proper time is given for a Bill of this nature, which is not controversial.
 
22 Feb 2005 : Column 245
 

In her excellent speech a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out that several other Bills—the Civil Contingencies Bill and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, to name but two—have been subjected to the same timetabling tactics. Earlier in this Parliament, I belonged to the Standing Committee considering the Adoption and Children Bill, which was also uncontroversial and given all-party support. Many hon. Members were keen to ensure that this House produced good law that would endure and command respect. Laws like that are effective and can be upheld in the courts, but they cannot be achieved if the Government are always trying to rush them through the House.

There is no good reason for the Government's determination to rush this Bill through—apart from the possibility that the Minister and her team just want to go back to their offices or their homes early. The Bill's Report and Third Reading should be considered over a prolonged period of time, as there are many additional points that need to be discussed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out that we made good progress in Standing Committee and that the Bill enjoyed all-party support. However, some aspects of it were not properly debated. We should have liked more time in Committee, but the Opposition co-operated with the Government as much as we possibly could. We went out of our way to be co-operative and responsible and, to the extent that it is possible for an Opposition to do so, to help the Government get the Bill through Committee. That is why I am appalled by the letter that my hon. Friend received from the Minister and the notification of the amendments. What is going on? We have just had 10 days off for half-term. Did the Home Office simply close down during that period? What were the Minister's civil servants doing? Why on earth could they not have contacted members of the Committee in good time, given us plenty of warning and behaved more imaginatively and proactively, which might have led to better legislation? What the Government are doing this afternoon is likely to lead to bad legislation and that is why I shall support my hon. Friend in the forthcoming Division.

6.5 pm

---