| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): When the Minister or her officials drafted the timetable motion that we are now discussing, did she or did she not know how many amendments and new clauses would be tabled? Indeed, did she know the contents of the provisional selection of amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means?
Ms Blears: I am not aware that we had that information at the time that the programme motion was drafted. However, I can try to assure hon. Members that we will seek this afternoon to have as full a debate as we can on the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled.
Ms Blears: I will give way again in a moment.
Today, we have guaranteed six hours of debate in Committee or until 10 pm, whichever is the later. We have agreed to an hour's extension to the business to protect the time for debate on Third Reading, and also to Opposition requests that no knives are placed on the debate in Committee so as to try to retain the maximum flexibility to consider the amendments that have been tabled.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab):
Can my hon. Friend clarify the position? I understand that we have been told to listen with bated breath to the Home Secretary this afternoon, when he will show that he has been listening to the debate and will come forward with alternative proposals. However, those alternative proposals or amendments will not be before the House
28 Feb 2005 : Column 645
today; they will appear on a promissory note saying that he will introduce them in the House of Lords. Is that correct? If it is, it really is bad form. We should have allowed a day or two to elapse so that the House of Commons could discuss the amendments rather than there being a promise that they will be introduced in the House of Lords.
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend will have to listen to today's debate as it unfolds and to the Home Secretary. I have said on many occasions that we have been listening very carefully to the strength of feeling—not just on the Government Benches, but on the Opposition Benches. I have no doubt that, as the debate develops today, we will see that matters are being taken fully into account. I am sure that my hon. Friend can make his points at that stage.
Ms Blears: I will give way in a moment.
We need to have a legal framework in place by 13 March. Otherwise, without the renewal of the part 4 powers, we could face the prospect of looking at the possible release of detainees without any legal framework to provide some controls in respect of those detainees. That is why it is important that we consider this legislation today with some urgency.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): The hon. Lady referred to the Opposition's view on knives in the programme motion. When the Government approached us to suggest that there should be knives in the programme, we did not even know the programme on which knives were to be imposed. It is not entirely correct to suggest that the Government have acceded to our request. It is true that they have not imposed knives, but they would not have known where they should fall.
Ms Blears: As I said, we are trying to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to enable the various points that hon. Members have raised to be considered.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Even if one accepted what the hon. Lady said about the deadline, why could we not have had two days this week to consider such an important Bill?
Ms Blears: A decision has been taken to consider the Bill today and we need to make progress with it. I entirely accept that its passage is very swift, but the time available will enable us to scrutinise the big issues of principle that remain matters of contention.
Ms Blears: I am sure that we can have a good debate this afternoon. [Hon Members: "Will the Minister give way?"] I will give way to hon. Members in due course, but not on the basis that they are shouting at me.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab):
My hon. Friend is well known for her flexibility and tolerance. Given that this is a basic and important question of not only the rights of the House of
28 Feb 2005 : Column 646
Commons, but those of every United Kingdom citizen, surely it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Leader of the House to come to the other parties through the usual channels and ask for this week's programme to be rejigged so that we could have at least one more day to consider the Bill. Failure to do that will at least leave the Government open to the interpretation that they are frightened of free speech.
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we will be discussing serious and fundamental matters today and the Government are not afraid of that debate or unwilling to enter into it constructively. The programming of the Bill has been considered by the usual channels and the Leader of the House, so I suggest that we press on with the business.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): The hon. Lady said that she did not know how many amendments and new clauses would be considered. By her calculations, how many minutes—or seconds—will be available to discuss each amendment and new clause?
Ms Blears: At the last count, about 160 amendments had been tabled, although I am sure that there are more now. As the hon. Gentleman well knows from his extensive experience in the House, some matters are more complex than others and some take longer to discuss. Some matters can be dealt with relatively quickly, but sometimes the shortest amendments take the longest time to discuss because they are more fundamental than others.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): The hon. Lady has already conceded that she did not know the number of amendments and new clauses to be considered at the time at which the revised programme motion was tabled, so what conceivable grounds has she to say that the programme motion gives anything like sufficient time or that it is based on proper information?
Ms Blears: As I said, I was aware of 160 extensive amendments when I left on Thursday afternoon. Without the use of knives, I believe that we can have a wide-ranging and flexible debate on the principles in the Bill.
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): The Minister concedes that there are a great many amendments, all of which relate to important matters. She also conceded a few minutes ago that the Bill is being rushed through the House and that we will have only a brief time to discuss such matters. Surely she can take up the extremely reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and ask the Leader of the House to rejig this week's schedule. If she did that, she would get the support of every other party and most of her Back Benchers.
Ms Blears:
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I did not say that the Bill was being rushed. I said that its passage was swift, but that we could nevertheless have a good, constructive and reasoned debate.
28 Feb 2005 : Column 647
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): Just for absolute clarity, let me make it clear that the Opposition would be very willing to discuss with the Leader of the House any further rejigging of the motion to get proper debate on this important subject.
Ms Blears: As I said, I think that we should press on with the business and maximise the time that there is for debate.
Ms Blears: I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): I am sorry that the Minister is making the speech that she is making because she must know that it is an undignified performance. Given that Home Office Ministers usually pride themselves on speaking frankly, why is it that she has not felt able, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), to explain to the public that the Government's belief is that for more than 180 new clauses and amendments, it is satisfactory that the House should have less than two minutes for the consideration of each? If she does not think that that is a disgrace, she ought to do so.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |