| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has a great resemblance to what happened a few weeks ago when the Lord Chancellor had entered into correspondence with people outside the House. Mr. Speaker was very annoyed that we did not get proper notice of the letters that had been exchanged earlier that day. Surely the Government are again treating the House with total contempt. Is the Chair happy with that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to second-guess the state of mind of the Chair. The Chair is attempting to conduct these proceedings in an orderly manner. I have suggested to the House that the business motion, which has so far appeared to attract criticism, still has to be decided upon by this House. The decision of this House on the programme motion determines whether we proceed on the substantive business in the way that is laid out. I think that that is the best way for the House to proceed.
Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I gently remind you that it is normally seen as the duty of the Chair to protect the House of Commons? We all heard on the news at midday that a letter had been sent to us. I went to the Vote Office before I came into the Chamber, and the letter was not there. This is a crucial consideration in our attitude to the allocation of time, as well as to the content of the Bill. I gently suggest that for the Chair to defend the behaviour of the Government, which dishonours this House, is to take on a duty that is not in line with the way in which the Chair normally sees its role.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I do not think that I made any such imputation. I have merely said, or thought that I
28 Feb 2005 : Column 654
had merely said, that the documentation to which reference had been made—two separate items—now appeared to be available, and that the orderly manner for Members to respond to that is to collect them from the place where they have been put. I was simply objecting to a disturbance in the House while I was on my feet about the distribution that was going on unofficially. These documents are now, as I understand it, in the Vote Office and available to all Members.
Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the House has made it very clear that it wants to suspend and that the Chair is being put in an impossible position. It could help us if you would indicate whether it is your intention to accept manuscript amendments in any discussion. That could influence the decision of individual Members who might feel very strongly that, if you were so inclined, they could allow the discussion to go ahead.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Manuscript amendments can be submitted, but must of course be considered in the usual way, so I cannot give any guarantee that simply because such an amendment is submitted it will necessarily be chosen for debate.
Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have one small point and one more major one. The small point is that it is not yet clear to the House whether the Government are circulating one document or two. A statement from a Minister would clear that up.
The substantive point is that, if the Home Secretary is proposing amendments to the Bill and has decided that he does not want to put them to this House on Report, that is probably because six hours does not give us enough time to discuss them. That is why this matter is relevant to the programme motion. It would be a courtesy and a help to the House if the Leader of the House or the Home Secretary could come here to say what those amendments would be. We could then decide whether to extend the programme motion or reject it so as to allow the Government amendments to be considered at the Report stage of this important Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that there are, to my knowledge, two documents, which, also to my knowledge, are both now in the Vote Office.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he said that the country faced a threat the like of which we have never faced before. Looking at the rest of this week's business, I would suggest that nothing on our agenda ranks higher than the consideration of this measure. Clearly, there has been pressure from both sides of the House for the Government to give us more time to consider whether it is proper or appropriate given the level of threat that we face. The Opposition parties have a day's debate this week. If the Government are unwilling to give us some of their time to extend the timetable, might not the
28 Feb 2005 : Column 655
Opposition give us their day so that we could at least have two days' debate on the Committee and Report stages?
Mr. Field: Given that the Opposition are prepared to give us their Opposition day to extend the timetable on the Bill, may we ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how we might act positively on that helpful suggestion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is unable to make any suggestion about the way in which the usual channels work. That is one of the great mysteries of the House. However, it is always open to the usual channels to act in the way that they think fit.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to ask your assistance on a matter that stems from a point that was raised earlier. What is happening is unprecedented in my experience and that of hon. Members who have been here much longer than me. Many serious amendments have been tabled on the derogating aspects—the most important elements—of the Bill. How can hon. Members possibly debate amendments to a Government Bill that is not, in fact, the Government Bill? We are told that there are inchoate, as yet unexpressed and undrafted amendments that the Government will table in the House of Lords. I seriously ask how can the House conceivably debate those amendments?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in making those remarks, seeks to draw the Chair into the debate. The House is trying to determine precisely that issue in considering the programme motion. The Chair cannot comment on that.
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not recall an occasion of such importance, with points being raised on the way in which the House should proceed, when the Leader of the House has not hurried into the Chamber, if he was not already present. In my experience, the Chair often has to rely on the Leader of the House to take some action following any expression of concern from the Chair. Is there some way in which you can communicate to the Leader of the House that he should be here to assist the House in finding a way out of the difficulty of ensuring that the measure is properly debated?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is an admirable system of electronic communication around the building and I would be surprised if most hon. Members were not aware of the proceedings.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have we been in order for the past 37 minutes or so? It appears that we are discussing a programme motion for allocation of time to consider amendments that will be redundant because the Government intend to amend the Bill in their own
28 Feb 2005 : Column 656
way in another place. Before we came into the Chamber, the letter and the documents were not available to hon. Members such as me. We have spent 25 minutes discussing a programme motion for which relevant documents were not available before we began the debate. Is that in order? If not, surely it would be better to suspend proceedings, get the information and begin the process again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are in danger of repeating ourselves. I have said that the documents are available. Their absence at the beginning may have been unsatisfactory in the eyes of some hon. Members but they are available now.
Mr. Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The letter may be available but the amendments are not. As the guardian of the House's rights, will not you protect us by ensuring that we have the papers that are relevant to the debate? The only way in which that can happen is to have the amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that matter is outwith my control. It is not unprecedented for the House to be informed during the course of a debate that amendments, sometimes not completely specified, will be tabled in another place. We are in that position today. It is not for me to comment on the suitability of that, but it is not without precedent. In the circumstances, the House must rely only on the Home Secretary's letter.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |