Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Dame Marion. I wonder whether you can help me. I think that it is only fair to raise the following matter at this stage in proceedings.

The Bill started in November 2003 in another place. On 4 March, it was the subject of a complaint by Baroness Anelay, who voiced the Opposition's views on the fact that even though the Bill had already been in the other House for three months 17 pages of Government amendments on mental incapacity were suddenly tabled on the eve of the eleventh hour. At that stage, my noble Friend asked for recommittal proceedings, which were quietly brushed aside.

What is so sad about this Christmas tree Bill is that almost nine months later and four sittings before the end of the agreed time for the scrutiny of the Bill by this Committee, the Government have again tabled a series of significant amendments that make a great deal of difference to the Bill. This is not the first time that that has happened. So serious are the amendments that they involve yet another adjustment to the long title—I think that it has now been adjusted three times.

I would like your advice, Dame Marion, about what can be done. The Government's action is not in the spirit of the way in which we have tried to co-operate with them on the Bill, or in the spirit of effective scrutiny of the legislation. It shows that the Government are so chaotic that they cannot get their act together in nine months to present the House with a suitable draft Bill. It robs those organisations outside the House who have been intimately involved with the passage and process of the Bill of the opportunity to consult and feed back their views on important clauses. Once again, the spectre of recommittal in the other place is raised because their lordships have not had a chance to scrutinise large chunks of the Bill.

Dame Marion, can you advise me whether it would be in order to ask for recommittal of the Bill in another place, and whether there is any way that we can prevent such activity by the Government, which looks like sharp practice?

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Further to that point of order, Dame Marion. I share the hon. Lady's dismay about such a significant group of amendments being tabled at this stage of the Bill's passage. The Bill has not been making quick progress through its parliamentary stages. It has suffered repeated delay both in another place and between the two Houses—we seemed to wait an inordinate amount of time for it to make further progress in this House.

Although it would be inappropriate to talk about the content of the amendments, and I do not intend to do so, it is right to say so that they are both significant and, in large part, leftovers from the previous enactment, the Courts Act 2003, in connection with which they should have been considered. It is stretching the good nature of the Committee to introduce major amendments at this stage, when we had been making good progress and felt that we were doing justice to the Bill. I fear that we will not now have the opportunity to scrutinise the new amendments, and the other place will certainly not have such an opportunity unless the hon. Lady's request is acceded to.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I listened carefully to what the hon. Members said, but the points of order are not a matter for me. The tabling of the amendments was carried out in accordance with the correct procedures. What happens in the other place is certainly nothing to do with me. The points of order are, in fact, matters for debate between the hon. Members and the Minister.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.