| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon: I am not being silly about the numbers of minutes. According to the analysis of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), eight minutes is fine, but two minutes is wrong. Conservative Members are being childish and ridiculous.
Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman demeaning himself in that fashion.
Not only is today's timetable grotesque but, because of the way in which the matter has been handled since Second Reading, hon. Members have had grossly insufficient time in which to consider the detail of the legislation and to select their amendments. The Clerks of the House have had great difficulty in grouping the amendments, which is the inevitable consequence of requiring amendments to be tabled in haste. It would have been so much better if we had had more time to consider the matter.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, which the curmudgeonly Minister would not do. It would help our proceedings if we knew which amendments the Government will propose within the tight timetable. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have received absolute and categorical assurances from the press that there is a letter in the post to all of us setting out the Government amendments? Does he have a copy yet?
Mr. Grieve:
Well, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have a copy of a letter from the Home Secretary, which tells us that the Government will amend this Bill in another place. We are being asked to pass this
28 Feb 2005 : Column 651
legislation, which is of huge constitutional and legal significance, on the basis of promises that will be fulfilled elsewhere. That is an impossibility.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to interfere with my hon. Friend's speech, but he has just made an important statement. He has received a letter, which will apparently be sent to all other hon. Members, about the future progress of the Bill, but most hon. Members have not received such a letter. Should we not stop these proceedings until we are in a position to read the letter, which is apparently important?
Mr. Garnier : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A note entitled, "Note on non-derogating control orders", was handed to me in the Lobby. It is dated 28 February and it is unsigned, although I assume that it comes from an agent of the Home Office. Will you confirm that it has been handed not only to me, but to other Government and Opposition Members? It would be a great pity if Government Members did not know what their Government were doing in their names.
Sir Patrick Cormack : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The situation is wholly unsatisfactory. Will you use your powers to stop the clock and suspend the sitting to allow all hon. Members the chance to read that letter, and Government and Opposition Front Benchers the chance to work out a sensible programme?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As I understand it, a note has been placed in the Vote Office and it should be available to all hon. Members. I am not aware of the letter to which hon. Members have referred, but it is usual for any matter which is to be relied on in debate to be made available to all hon. Members. I am not aware of the extent to which those documents are available. On previous occasions, the Chair has ruled that anything that is vital or relevant to the debate should be available to all hon. Members.
Mr. Grieve: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The letter is addressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). It arrived less than an hour ago by fax and is signed by the Home Secretary, who makes two points of which the House should be aware. First, he says:
Where is he? I cannot see him. Secondly, he says:
"I hope that this letter makes my intentions clear and so I am placing a copy of this letter in the library of the House for the benefit of all Members before the substantive Committee debate begins."
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. It appears to the Chair that both documents that have been referred to have been made available in the appropriate ways to which
28 Feb 2005 : Column 652
the House is accustomed. [Interruption.] Well, the intention is that they should be available. On that basis, we must proceed with the programme motion.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is right, as has been read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), that the Home Secretary expects us to see the letter in the Library before the substantive debate begins—in other words, before the debate that follows the programme motion begins—would you please suspend the House so that we can do it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to assume that the Home Secretary's intention, as stated, is being fulfilled. That is relevant to the substantive debate, rather than to the programme motion. It is a separate issue from the question of the suitability of the programme, which the House is discussing at present.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gather that, as has been said, a copy has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons, but a single copy in the Library would lead to an unseemly queue if every hon. Member went along to make a photocopy. It would seem appropriate if the Department or the Library were asked to provide copies as rapidly as possible for circulation to Members in the Chamber and those who want it from the Vote Office. I hate to say this, but, if necessary, the House should be suspended until they all have a copy of the letter, which I have.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, what the Home Secretary is trying to communicate to us through the letter in the Library is that, presumably because we have only six hours for debate, he does not intend to table amendments in the House today, but he has already formed a clear intention of amending the Bill, and he will table those amendments in another place once we have finished our proceedings. I have never heard of that process being followed before. It is an outrage. Could you suspend the sitting while the usual channels consider whether the Government can proceed with an important Bill on that basis? It reduces our proceedings to a farce if we know that we are about to discuss a Bill that is going to be amended, if the Government get their way, in another place. It is an intolerable contempt of the House to proceed in that way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I understand it now, the letter—I have a copy in my hand—is being made available in the Vote Office so that it will be available to all Members before the substantive debate begins. By continuing this argument, time is being taken out of the overall time available, which the Chair does not control. There is a programme motion before the House, which the House has yet to decide upon. That is the first step the House has to take—
Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab):
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is distributing the letter.
28 Feb 2005 : Column 653
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I may say so to the right hon. Lady, there is a method for doing these things. If hon. Members wish to have documents relating to the debate, it is more orderly for those to be collected and not distributed while the occupant of the Chair is on his feet. The programme motion before the House is precedent to the business—[Interruption.] Order. That has to be determined first. The House must make a decision on that. If the House decides on the programme motion, the business goes ahead. Anything that happens outside the Chamber between the usual channels is nothing on which the Chair can adjudicate. I advise the House that we should proceed with the programme motion and decide thereafter how we deal with the substantive order.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All legislation is important, but surely no legislation is more important than legislation that might have the effect of depriving the individual citizen of his or her liberty. I feel great discomfort about the way in which these proceedings are being conducted, particularly in the past 15 or 20 minutes. Would it not be appropriate for you to consider the applications made on both sides of the House for a suspension so as to allow right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to study the documents that have now been made available?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |