1.(1) Proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill shall be taken and concluded at today's sitting; and for this purpose—
(2) For the purpose of concluding proceedings in accordance with sub-paragraphs 1(d) and (e), the Chair shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
2. At the sitting tomorrow—
I regret the fact that this motion appears on the Order Paper. We have heard a most profound and important statement from the Prime Minister today, giving voice to the views of many in Britain about the fears that we as a people suffer in the face of terrorism, and to the suffering that was experienced by one of the communities within the United Kingdom.
This is a land of laws and of due process, and that due process applies to the House of Commons. I am here only because of the liberties secured for me by preceding generations. We are all conscious of that as elected representatives of defined parts of this realm. This is important, therefore, because the process by which we conduct our business is the very process that has secured our liberty.
I say this with the greatest regret because I understand the urgencies that we often feel in our fear in the face of terrorism. We are being asked to consider, in the shortest possible space of time, measures that affect our profound liberties and our civil and criminal justice systems. That is a corruption of the ideal. We have a duty to weigh most solemnly and carefully every contention that is set before the House.
The Standing Orders of the House set out the way in which, by tradition and custom, that has been done by the House. A Bill is deposited before the House so that we, the elected representatives of the citizens—the generality of us all—may consider and weigh the contentions in it. All day yesterday, I, along with many hon. Members, telephoned the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office and demanded to know when the draft of the Bill could be seen: first, it was to be by 12 o'clock, then before 2 o'clock, then some time between half-past 4 and 5 o'clock; finally, it reached the Vote Office at ten minutes to 6 yesterday.
Until ten minutes to 6 yesterday, all that I knew about the Bill was what I believe the country will come to detest more than anything—the manipulation, the spin, the press releases and all the covert ways of trying to secure the legislation of this country without reference to Parliament. I knew only what I was told by anonymous press spokesmen.
The matter goes further than that. We were told with a sort of laudable intent that the Bill would be draconian. Leaving all that aside, that is how long it took the House, assembled in London, to gain possession of the Bill. I am a representative from the west midlands, but how long would it take those from Scotland, Northumberland, Cornwall, Wales and Ulster to gain possession of the Bill?
We are assembled at half-past 2 to discuss the Bill. Before us is a motion that insists that we conduct an examination of the intents of the Bill and weigh the processes of the House. Can that process be borne? Is it worth bearing it, and for what purpose?
The House should reject the motion. In the face of terrorism, we should not abandon the freedom to discuss these matters. It is essential that we think about them. This is a new House of Commons, and it has almost become a House of Commons of acclamation. The contentions that we shall consider on Second Reading are such that we will come to regret them if we accept them in their present form.
I have been in the House for 19 years. I have seen every manner of expression and hallelujah and law. I opposed them as best I could, and I noticed that I had the support of the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary; I noted the words of the present Home Secretary in respect of these matters.
On 30 October last year, the Home Secretary gave us to understand that a consultation paper on terrorism would be issued by the beginning of the year. Throughout the year we have inquired about it—it was to be available early this year, then a couple of months later and then a couple of months after that. We were told not to worry. We were told that in October a consultation paper would be issued on some of the principles contained in the Bill. The Prime Minister now says that he cannot promise us when the consultation paper will be issued—and it is only a consultation paper, not a Bill or a White Paper.
Throughout the year, the Home Office and its officials told us that the issues involved were dynamite. We were told that the matters would have to be weighed, and the views of the House would be needed. Yet the Bill is drawn up as though there were no need for consultation or for the House to reflect on the measures proposed to deal with terrorism.
I take the matter extremely seriously. I want the House to reflect on it. Will we have added one jot? What will we have accomplished by assembling at the beginning of September? Why have we assembled? The stately order of our business does not require us to be here. I noticed that in his statement, which at times was more like a speech in a Second Reading debate, the Prime Minister did not make a serious case for the House being assembled today and called out of turn. He said that the Irish Dail is sitting today. I wish the Dail well, and I hope that we march with it in this Bill. The Dail may have prepared the ground for it, but we as a House have clearly not done so.
This is no way for the House to conduct its business. The Government are acting manipulatively. The House does not countenance terrorism, but we have been knee-jerked here. There is much talk about considered, rational legislation, but all too little ability for the House to consider it reasonably.
Hon. Members should reflect on the contents of the Order Paper and on what we are asked to do. How do we table an amendment to the Bill? The Order Paper states:
notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted before the Bill by the Clerks at the Table has been read a second time".
The Bill was read the First time a few minutes ago, so the House has had only a few minutes to table amendments properly and in good order. We have all served on Committees and are familiar with the Committee stage of Bills. We may want to table amendments during the Committee stage, but the Order Paper does not allow for that. How do we deal with amendments? Are they to be tabled four or five minutes before the end of Second Reading? If an hon. Member tables a manuscript amendment, how will the rest of the House obtain a copy of it? How will we be able to read the amendment and relate it to the content of the Bill?
I am astounded that the Leader of the House did not think it worth her while to explain to the House why there should be a guillotine that would condense discussion of the entire Bill into six hours. Clauses 1 to 4 are to be dealt with in the first three hours, and the rest—Report and Third Reading—is to be disposed of in another three hours. How do we treat those assembled in the other place—the Law Lords of this land, some of the finest legal minds? How do we treat any amendment that they deign to send to us? All Lords matters will be disposed of in one hour.
I plead with the House. Ours is a great nation, a nation founded on freedom and liberty. We are the elected representatives of this nation. We should have a pride in our process, for in our process we defend our liberty in the face of these terrorists.
Lest it should be thought that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks alone, I should say that I have grave reservations about the speed with which the Bill is to be debated. I hope to move an amendment that will deal with some of the points that particularly concern me, but I believe that the House of Commons ought to give itself time to think.
In a long career in the House, I have realised that, brilliant though we may be, we are not the repository of all wisdom and that occasionally there are those outside in the United Kingdom who can give us advice and help and point out that what we believe to be targeted and precise may in legislative terms be imprecise, vague and, in the final analysis, not worthy of a democratic assembly. I hope that we will think. I am aware of the pressure on Members as a result of the horrendous and appalling events, but I hope that we will think seriously that, when we rush through legislation and cease to put on the statute book ideas and views that have been properly tested by the time to debate, to examine and, indeed, often to understand what we are doing, we are not fulfilling our proper task.
I have very grave reservations about the way in which our proceedings today are being organised. I hope that it will be clear that they stem not from objection to the need to do something urgent about the horrendous terrorism but from something stronger that can be summed up in a very simple phrase—my misgivings about legislation that is rushed and probably will not, in the final analysis, be capable of doing that which we demand of it.
My party received a fax at about 10 o'clock yesterday morning from the Secretary of State to say that, if we rang a number at Stormont, we would be supplied with a copy of the Bill. I immediately rang that number and the civil servant informed me that the Bill had been printed, but that changes were being made and that it had to be completely reprinted. I was told that it would be available shortly after noon. I rang again at noon and he said that he was sorry, but it would not be available until later on. It was only later last night that we received a copy. I must say that the Northern Ireland Office faxed us a full copy.
Hon. Members know my attitude to terrorism, but terrorism is not the issue before the House. The issue is how we deal with business that is very, very important. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the Bill affects all my constituents: it does not affect only people who call themselves the Real IRA. Anybody can be lifted under the terms of the Bill. Therefore, I as a representative of those people have a right to defend their interests, and where should I defend them? I should do so in the House.
If we are to meet today, why did we not have a two-day sitting? Why bring us all here and then more or less say, "Snub your nose at the House of Lords for it does not matter what it says anyway"? If we had any respect for the other House, we would wait and hear its report and debate it. We should have had two days at this Bill.
The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party made a similar point when he said that his party would like more time to consider the Bill. In the circumstances, I should have thought that we should have as much time as possible to consider it, and there are ways in which that could be done. I therefore agree entirely with the hon. Members who spoke before me on that issue.
I agree very strongly with the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke before me—an unusual combination. We say that the Bill attacks civil liberties, but the attack on civil liberties has already begun because Members of Parliament are being denied the time to examine the Bill, to consult their constituents and experts, and to refer to the initial Acts of Parliament that are being amended. How can Members suddenly pick up the fact that the Bill amends the prevention of terrorism Act or the law on criminal conspiracy?
We are being used to rubber-stamp what a Government have decided to do, but they do not know what they want to do. They have had two weeks to draft the Bill. They could have published it in draft. The Liberal Democrats' leader said that he knows that changes were made. He is luckier than I am because he must have seen an earlier draft. If he had seen an earlier draft, he could have tabled an amendment before the Bill came before the House. What a way to treat Parliament! We are being treated as though we were the Supreme Soviet, simply summoned to carry through the instructions of the Central Committee.
Whatever the merits of the Bill—we are not discussing them now—it is an absolute affront to the House and to those whom we represent to say that we have to pass the motion by 10 pm. I made inquiries at the Whips Office. The Chief Whip will know that I rang No. 12 time and again before lunch. I was told that there was not even going to be a guillotine motion, so that has appeared at the last minute.
It is time that hon. Members stood up for our right to represent the people who send us here. On those grounds, I strongly support the speeches of the hon. Members who spoke before me. I think it is a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who said that he would be unable to support the Bill because of the shortage of time, although on reflection he might decide that he wished to support or amend it. I urge the House to move for more time.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I wrote to you in the middle of August asking for the recall of Parliament to debate the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. I welcome the recall, but not just to be forced to do what I am told in respect of a Bill that I have not seen and cannot consider and about which, in any case, many people want a longer debate.
No one wants to undermine the unity that exists across the House against terrorism. None of the speeches that we have heard has sought to do that, but, procedurally, what we are asked to do is contrary to all aspects of "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders. It is wrong.
We can march in time with the Dail. Let us have Second Reading today, but let us come back in a week—the period that is usually allowed—during which time amendments could be tabled and the matter could be properly considered. We are again setting a precedent that is wrong.
It is not as if we are going to war. In some instances, the House is recalled specifically for that reason, but whether this Bill were passed tomorrow or next week would make not one jot of difference, except that a week's delay would mean that it could be considered fully and properly, as the structures of the House have always demanded. Why are we being so rushed? No reason has been given. It seems that we are thrusting to one side all the House's normal procedures for no reason.
During Prayers, I obtained a copy of the Bill from the Vote Office. The document that I was handed stated that it was a draft. Like many other hon. Members, I have just come back from my holidays. I telephoned home to find out what was happening in general, was told that Parliament was to be recalled because of Omagh and was satisfied that that was proper. I want action to be taken against terrorism and terrorists, as do we all. However, clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill do not deal with or arise from Omagh.
I received a letter from the Chief Whip, or party officials, telling me that the proposals—on conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas—were supported by the Government when they were in opposition. In February 1997, those proposals were put to the House in a private Member's Bill, which had the support of the then Tory Government, but the House failed twice to provide a quorum to pass the Bill. The Tories, who wanted it, could not provide the quorum and no Labour Member went into the Lobby to provide one on either occasion. If that was Labour supporting the measure in opposition, I would not like to see us opposing anything. In fact, it was one of the most effective examples of opposition during that Tory Government's period in office.
I feel deeply affronted that Omagh, on which I want the House to speak with a united voice, is being mixed up with other items. If action were taken or planned in this country, for instance against the Taliban in Afghanistan, that would be subject to the Bill—
I approached the Prime Minister on behalf of my party to ask for a recall of the House because we were tired of listening to Government through the press and tired of the concept that we were to tackle terrorism in Northern Ireland through secondary legislation, which might not stand up. Regrettably, now that we have been recalled, we have discovered that, for whatever reason or judgment, an opportunity to bring us into line with the Republic has been set aside. It is important that we have time to debate the matter and learn the mind of the House properly.
I am also concerned about the way in which a matter of this importance has been handled. I should have expected some notice, but, given the situation, I can appreciate why we did not have it. I do not appreciate the fact that there has not even been an opportunity for members of the parliamentary Labour party to discuss the matter. I wanted to do some research to find out whether the United States Congress has any legislation similar to the Bill that the Government are trying to push through. That is important and it is germane. The Prime Minister says that he is walking hand in hand with the Irish Government. I want to know why, or whether, he is walking hand in hand with the American Government.
You indeed have a difficult task, Madam Speaker, in producing before the end of Second Reading a list of marshalled amendments that the House can use. However, the Government have got themselves into that difficulty, with their decision to add to the Bill provisions on conspiracy that are not confined to terrorism.
The conspiracy provisions are extremely wide, and in my view it would take more than their portion of the three hours referred to in the motion to consider them properly, bearing in mind the fact that the second half of the time allocated is for clause 5 and the remainder of the Bill, together with Report stage, if we have one, and any other proceedings. Within those three hours, all that has to be dealt with.
Many hon. Members did not expect to find those provisions in the Bill, and therefore have not had the opportunity to consult widely on them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), our Chief Whip, attempted to negotiate a satisfactory outcome through the usual channels, but the view widespread among my hon. Friends is that it will not be possible to do justice to the important Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill and still leave enough opportunity to consider the rest of it.
We all have to recognise that some of our cherished procedures sometimes have to be cut short so that we can deal with emergencies. That argument runs for the first part of the Bill, but it does not run effectively for the second half of it, which could have been introduced at a later date. Precisely for that reason, I find myself unable to recommend that my hon. Friends support the motion.
In support of what has already been said to you, Madam Speaker, may I draw your attention to one matter of importance that has not been mentioned? The Bill affects the liberty of the subject, yet, because of the speed with which it has been drafted, the drafting is a lamentation. I have read a good many statutes in my time, and I have no hesitation in saying that this is one of the worst that I have ever seen.
By way of a soupcon, may I—it is a very short quotation, Madam Speaker—offer this delicacy from subsection (6) of the proposed new section 1A that clause 5 would insert into the Criminal Law Act 1977:
In the application of this Part of this Act to an agreement in the case of which each of the above conditions is satisfied"—
Order. I am quite capable of reading the Bill, which is now available in its final form. The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising minute Committee points. He has every right to do so, but at the right time.
Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take his seat until I have given him a little guidance? We are discussing the business motion at this stage, not the Bill. No part of the Bill can be considered until I have the business motion.
May I clarify the point that I am trying to make, Madam Speaker? I am not talking about the merits of the clause from which I quoted; I cannot do so, because I cannot decipher it. Having spent a great deal of time trying to read it, bringing to it what legal experience I have, I find it completely incomprehensible. One of the reasons why it is incomprehensible is the unseemly speed with which the Bill has been drafted.
That utterly incomprehensible clause—I invite hon. Members to read it at their leisure as, following your order, Madam Speaker, I may not read it myself—would have the most profound effect on the liberty of the subject in this country in respect of what are purported to be agreements to commit offences overseas.
The Bill is not in a fit condition to be debated by the House—
I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I ask the House to oppose the business motion and not to give it any consideration. I am fortified in my contention by the fact that the deputy leader of the Liberal party has decided that his own party should oppose it—despite the fact that the motion carries the signature of his Chief Whip.
I would not seek to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I would say that this is an example of the contempt in which the Prime Minister holds the Chamber, and which he has demonstrated almost from the first day we assembled after the general election. We are being used simply as a rubber stamp. The news is released by leak, by briefing, so that ordinary Members of the House read about it for the first time in the newspapers as they are on the way to the House. It has already been released to Lobby journalists; it has already been the subject of briefings. The meat of what is proposed has already been determined.
We are simply not being consulted, and we do not have time properly to discuss and debate the Bill. The whole House should reject the business motion because, in the fulness of time, this experience will be repeated on many occasions.
I hesitate to question the judgment of hon. Members who have spoken, who, on my calculation, have between them more than 200 years' experience in the House. However, I must say, as a relatively new Member, that the broader population would be incredulous if we accepted the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in which he questioned whether we should have been recalled, and even more incredulous if we said that we were such slow readers that it would take us another week to consider the proposals.
I agree with some of the reservations that have been expressed, to which I should like to return during discussion on the Bill, but I believe that people expect us to march in step with the Dail on this and consider the issue today and tomorrow, because it is seen as an urgent issue and it requires an urgent response from Parliament.
Some days ago I argued, in the light of what I believed was coming up in the Bill, that it was an outrageous contempt of the House for us to be treated in the way that we have been in the past few days. That feeling has been made even worse by today's occurrences.
The Government have determined on a course of action in the light of their extremely large majority. I say to the Prime Minister that I fear that, by attempting to railroad the Bill through, he may achieve the exact opposite of the objective that he seeks. I support the principle of the legislation, but I do not support the manner in which it is being enacted.
It is part and parcel of the procedures of the House that we have an opportunity to make amendments. I raised a point with you, Madam Speaker, concerning the long title. It is not enough for the Chairman of Ways and Means to exercise an attitude in the selection of amendments. The key question is whether it is within the order of the House for amendments that are inconsistent with the long title to be moved.
I believe that there is a serious problem, which goes to the heart of the Bill, and which the Prime Minister may not have fully appreciated. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which we passed on 28 July, provides for the imposition of a series of conditions and tests when deciding whether prisoners should be released early. The Act clearly states that among those tests is whether the person in question is a member of a proscribed organisation. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill changes the burden of the test, in the early parts of the procedure, to the opinion of a police officer plus other evidence.
If the long title needs to be changed to allow us to guarantee that persons who, in the opinion of a police officer and on the basis of the related evidence, are members of proscribed organisations are not released early, the failure to change the long title may create a flaw that defeats the Bill's main objective—to ensure that members of proscribed organisations are not released early. Therefore, there are substantive reasons why we need to know what the Government have in mind regarding the long title.
The argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made about the manner in which the Bill is being dealt with was absolutely justified. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary owe the House an explanation of how we can meaningfully propose or make amendments to the Bill.
There has been a remarkable cross-party consensus on the Back Benches. I have seen nothing quite like it since I have been in the House, which is not all that long. Nevertheless, lawyers on both sides of the House have advanced sensible arguments about why such rushed legislation is not a good idea. From my short experience in the House, I know that rushed legislation is not good legislation; yet, until 5.50 pm yesterday, it was impossible to obtain a draft copy of the Bill, and I understand that at 2.30 pm today, when the House met, it was still not possible to obtain the final version—certainly it was not possible this morning, when I tried.
What is the urgency? Are we to believe that on Friday, after a rushed Royal Assent, terrorists will start to be charged and locked up by the courts? I doubt it. I would say that the urgency has already been expressed by the Prime Minister, when he said that we must march in step with the Dail. It seems to me that this has much more to do with President Clinton's arrival tomorrow: we must all look as though we are expressing the same opinions, because President Clinton is coming tomorrow.
Most Members of Parliament would support the general thrust of the legislation. I certainly do—although I question why we got rid of internment in April this year, if we now want to introduce such so-called draconian measures. I think it important, however, for the House always to consider legislation sensibly and with time to spare, so that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out—it can discuss amendments.
This is rushed legislation, and I suspect that it will be bad legislation. I certainly do not believe that the House, the country or the fight against terrorism will benefit from our having passed it in such a rush.
This is not the first time that I have marched shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose original address to the House was extremely eloquent. I shall not risk your ire, Madam Speaker, by repeating what he said; I shall simply say "Ditto", which was said in the 18th century after an eloquent speech by Mr. Burke.
Like my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I waited in the long queue for copies of the Bill yesterday, when we had the impression that it was being changed by the hour. I think that, if the House was to be recalled, the Government might have paid it the compliment of having the legislation ready beforehand.
I want to dwell simply on clauses 5 to 7. In a long passage in his study of the Congress of Vienna, Henry Kissinger remarked on how difficult it was for the 18th century to come to terms with a revolutionary spirit like Napoleon. This age is faced with exactly the same problem in confronting terrorism. The Prime Minister said that clauses 5 to 7 had been lying around until a convenient moment arrived for them to be introduced. In terms of the time that we have to debate clauses 1 to 4, this strikes me as a singularly inconvenient moment. I must ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you would accept a manuscript amendment allowing us to delete those clauses, in order to solve our problems.
In this short debate, reference has been made to a guillotine motion. Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the only curtailment of today's debate will apply to debate on the business motion and the Committee stage, and that the Second Reading debate can continue until any hour, until all Members have had an opportunity to speak on this important Bill?
It is clear that many members of all political parties in the House are sympathetic to the direction taken by the Bill, but the unease that is emerging throughout the House about the pace at which we are moving should give the Government pause for thought.
This afternoon, I received 14 draft amendments proposed by the Law Society of Scotland. Those important amendments, whose value I have not had time to consider this afternoon, relate to issues such as the opportunity for individuals to consult solicitors, and the importance of a standard of proof in relation to forfeiture orders. I think that the House would benefit from an opportunity to consider those important matters, and I hope that the Home Secretary will have something to say about how that will be done.
I hope that the Prime Minister—who, understandably, has been unable to stay for the whole debate on the motion—will pay attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The House would be assisted—and, I am sure, the official Opposition would not object—if the Government, through the usual channels, came forward with a proposal to find a way forward.
The essential point is that the Government thought it right yesterday to use a number of hours to make adaptations and, no doubt, improvements to the Bill. The House would want to have the same opportunity. The Government's White Paper on local government refers to decisions made "outside the ordinary structure". In this case, decisions are being made outside the ordinary structure. For the purposes of law, the places where decisions are made are this Chamber and the Committees of the House.
The points that have been made thus far by parliamentary colleagues show the importance of debate because, as the discussion moves on, so colleagues see the importance of consideration. Many colleagues are coining to the opinion that perhaps clauses 5 and beyond should be excised from the Bill as their provisions lack the urgency that, arguably, should relate to those provisions that refer specifically to Northern Ireland.
In his very eloquent opening, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—a considerable parliamentarian in so many respects—perhaps voiced the concerns of many of us that, in a Bagehot sense, the House is moving from the efficient to the dignified part of the constitution. We are all part of a theatre. We are all meant to play our symbolic roles. I accept the symbolism of the Dail and our Parliament marching together in respect of terrorism. I am less happy to accept the symbolism behind the belief that we have to rush our proceedings through because of the visit of the President of the United States to Ireland.
We are here because of what is deemed to be an urgency. I believe that, following Omagh, there is certainly an urgency in respect of Northern Ireland—that, in my judgment, would be the consensus of the House—and that there are relatively short, clear and targeted amendments in respect of Northern Ireland. I am not so convinced in respect of those matters that, frankly, concern me the most in respect of terrorism.
I was one of those who helped to end the previous Government's attempt to have provisions relating to conspiracy put on the statute book. In that case, they did so through the back door by a private Member's device. They also did not, until the later stages, have the fallback position of the Attorney-General's fiat. Together with those on the then Opposition Front Bench, I agreed that that should be done.
Until very recently, we were told by the Government that the matters referred to in clause 5 and beyond would be the subject of a consultation paper to be brought forward some time in the autumn—essentially because of the constitutional importance of the matters to be discussed in terms of individual citizens' liberties and so on. What has happened in respect of terrorism offences that makes the need to override that consultation paper envisaged by the Government so urgent now? In my judgment, the case has not been made in respect of the latter part of the Bill; it almost certainly has been in respect of the first. I hope that the Government will consider carefully the differences between the two elements.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Government were to show that they were willing to substitute this business motion with one that allowed time to be allocated for a contemplation of the Bill without clause 5 and beyond, would that be a business motion that you could accept—either by amendment or substitution—so that we could proceed according to the spirit of the House?
An interesting debate is emerging on this business motion, which has been signed by representatives on both Front Benches and by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. Therefore, any self-respecting Back Bencher finds himself in a state of confusion about the way in which proceedings are taking place.
There is a separate strand in the debate. The powerful points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) were about any legislation that would be contemplated on a recall of the House such as today's, because of the due processes, as he rightly said. Latterly, certain points have been raised about some clauses in the Bill. I should like to ask the Home Secretary—if he would take a moment just to listen to me—to help some of us in the House. Why is the urgency of the clauses about international terrorism as great as those about Irish terrorism?
I entirely understand that view, but I must have misexpressed myself. My problem is that, to make a decision on the business of the House motion, I need to get some guidance from the Government on whether there was equal urgency in introducing clauses relating to international terrorism. I do not wish to debate those clauses.
There have been some disturbing events in the world during August relating to such international terrorism. It is also clear that, to achieve peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it is vital to keep the American Government on side. We have not been told, even by the Prime Minister this afternoon, whether there have been discussions between him and the American President about both aspects of the Bill, and whether the American President will make announcements when he arrives here that affect the consequences of terrorism. I ask the Home Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box to help on those important matters; otherwise, it will appear to hon. Members, and certainly to me, that we are legislating on two separate matters—one a matter of urgency and one a matter of convenience.
The Bill is divided into two parts. It would be easy if the President of the Council were to say that the Government were not going to move clauses 5 to 7. That would then end part of the controversy that surrounds the Bill.
Another part of the Bill is important. As I understand the Bill, the part concerning conspiracy will not be part of the consultative paper to be published in the autumn. It will have gone and will not be part of that general discussion. If that is true, we will not be able to return to it; we have been told that one of the major concessions under the Bill is that we will be able to look at it every year.
I urge my hon. Friends to think very carefully on this matter. It would be very easy not to move—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that it would still come under Lord Young's committee. Even if that is true, it still does not defeat my earlier argument. It is far easier for the Government to say that they will not move clauses 5 to 7. It gets over that particular difficulty.
In terms of what has been said, can my right hon. Friend the President of the Council say, following discussions with the American Government, to what extent that Government support the limitation of the fifth amendment of the United States constitution and whether the American President is considering introducing similar legislation in the United States to achieve that purpose?
This Government are used to using their very large majority to bully through inadequate legislation. They are in danger of doing the same thing again. It is interesting to see the way in which the tone of the House has changed over the past two hours. It is clear to me at least that the House is angered that two different types of terrorism are getting mixed up in one Bill.
Will the Government consider removing all those parts of the legislation to do with international terrorism, so that they can be given clear and thoughtful consideration at some later date? It seems to me that that part of the Bill owes more to President Clinton' s visit than to considerations of good-quality legislation.
I should like to deal as briefly as possible with the important issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why I did not speak when the motion was moved. I assure him that I meant no discourtesy to the House. I simply did not wish to take the time of the House in debating a matter that would reduce the time available for consideration of the substance of the issues that we are here to discuss. The House would be—
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me a moment. The proceedings that we are discussing are not unprecedented, although I agree that they are unusual. The House does not normally meet in this way or curtail business as we are doing.
If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I shall readily give way to him.
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He has asked me why I did not speak at the outset of the debate. I did not do so because I had hoped that the House would wish to proceed speedily—as I believe that the country wishes us to do—to discuss the substance of the Bill. I did not want to take up the time of the House. If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I apologise and I shall give way to him.
The right hon. Lady should have read her motion on the Order Paper. This motion can be debated until 10 o'clock. Putting forward the arguments for the guillotine would not take away the House's opportunity to debate the Bill. The right hon. Lady's argument is nonsense.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I gave not an argument, but a reason. He asked me to give a reason, and I have done so. If he finds it unsatisfactory, I am sorry. Of course the motion can be debated, but he will know that we do not debate all the motions that we are able to debate. It seemed right to preserve as much time as possible for the House to debate the substance of the Bill.
Previous Governments have felt that emergency issues had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. There have been precedents for matters being dealt with in this way. I say that with great respect to the many hon. Members who have made important points in the debate. In April 1996, an emergency was thought to have arisen. The then Government made a statement one day and the House discussed the legislation the next day. With great respect to the right hon. Members for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I should like to say that they voted for the guillotine motion of their Government to deal with that Bill in one day. The previous Government allowed less time to discuss that measure than we are allowing today. I have great respect for the right and proper feeling of hon. Members that we should consider and take proper decisions, but our course of action is not unprecedented or unknown. No doubt that is one reason why those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches supported this way of proceeding.
A situation in which not all the signatories to a motion still fully support it might be considered unusual. Having listened to the debate for the past hour, is the right hon. Lady confident that all the signatories to the motion still fully support all its details? If not, should the Government not make some response?
I have heard nothing that leads me to conclude that those who signed the motion do not continue to support it.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it is one of the absurdities of this place that it is thought to be an unforgivable sin not to listen to the arguments of one's colleagues and one's opponents. I know the difficulties that the Government had yesterday. I know that it was difficult to communicate. It was very difficult, when the Bill was not even published, to specify the format of the motion. However, I ask her to listen, as I have done, to the views expressed in the House, particularly on clauses 5 to 7. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) expressed real concerns, about measures that did not naturally fall within the Bill being tacked on. I am sincerely sorry if I have in any way led the right hon. Lady to expect my full support for the whole motion. Having listened to the views of other hon. Members—as I hope that the Government will—I shall withdraw my name from the motion.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. It was not so clear previously. If he and his party have changed their minds, that is a matter for them. As I am sure he is aware, members of his party, including some of those who have spoken in the debate, were kept informed. As far as I am aware, they were informed at least a week ago that we intended to include the provisions in the Bill. It would not be fair to imply that that came as a source of astonishment to the Liberal Democrats when they arrived at the House today. They are free to change their minds and I am sure that the House notes that they have done so.
Sadly—it is always sad when such matters have to be dealt with in this way—it is not unprecedented for the House to act as the Government propose. We have sought—
Much emphasis has been put on clauses 5 to 7. Points that are new to me have been made. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that President Clinton was not told that, by the time that he arrived in Ireland, the provision would be embodied in statute? If that is the reason, let us know it and determine whether it is valid.
I do not speak for the American Government, but I assure my right hon. Friend that the issue that he raised has formed no part of the Government's consideration and the matter has not been discussed in that way.
I said at the outset that I did not speak at the start of the debate because I did not wish to take up the time of the House—and nor do I wish to do so now. The debate has veered between those who have complained that there has been insufficient time to consider the matters that will be before us in the Bill and those who have complained that they had heard all about the issue in the press before the House had met. Those points of view are valid, but they are not consistent with each other. I have been surprised to hear both expressed by the same person at times. The Bill follows what the Prime Minister said at Omagh. The way in which the Government intended to proceed was extensively discussed and trailed. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and others are rightly concerned about how the provisions will operate should the House decide to pass the Bill. We have made it plain that the matter will be kept under review. It will be examined and will form part of the consultation process to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred, as will all the provisions of the Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to get on.
It has been said during the debate that the matters in the second part of the Bill will not form part of the review. That is not correct.
Any issue on which hon. Members have concerns can be raised—
I have already raised with the Prime Minister and with you, Madam Speaker, the question whether the long title could be amended. I have had further discussions with the Clerks, and it is clear that there are significant difficulties, unless the Leader of the House is prepared in principle to concede that that could be done—
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman—
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to me. May I ask her, very seriously, whether the Government will simply accept that the Bill is a complex one which has enormous implications? Even those of us who want to see on the statute book those aspects of the Bill that are most urgently needed in Northern Ireland have real reservations about it. During the next part of the debate, will she seriously consider whether there is a way in which the guillotine can be removed?
The motion is not, strictly speaking, a guillotine motion. It is a business motion, which was carefully considered so as to try to give a fair amount of time for the debate. It does give more time than has been given for debate on such matters in the past. I believe that the House has the capacity thoroughly and properly to debate the proposals that the Government are making, should the House wish to use and exercise that capacity. I am anxious, as I know my hon. Friend will be, to proceed towards allowing the House to take that step.
Does the Leader of the House accept that some of the implications of clauses 5 to 7 are technical and that Members might be well advised to consult people outside the House before coming to a conclusion on them? Given that the logic of proceeding at speed stems from the Irish situation and a desire to walk side by side with events in Dublin, and that that same logic does not apply to clauses 5 to 7, cannot the Government amend their position on that part of the Bill?
There have been recent terrorist events in places other than Omagh and therefore that is not the sole reason why the Government feel it necessary to put before the House the prospect of acting with some speed. The right hon. Gentleman says that the matters in the latter part of the Bill raise certain issues, but those issues have themselves been extensively discussed by the House over the past couple of years in a variety of different contexts. Therefore it has been possible for people to become conscious of some of the implications of the issues that he raises. However, it is undoubtedly the case—
With great respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I do not think that our constituents who send us here expect us to spend our time discussing the minutiae of how we debate the Bill. I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentlemen, who are both long-serving Members of Parliament, and bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Stone has voted for a guillotine on a previous occasion.
I shall not give way. I am simply saying to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I have been a Member of Parliament for as long as many and it has never been my practice to debate sittings motions and take up time, unless it was absolutely necessary. Hon. Members have raised important issues relating to whether matters should be handled in this way, but that question has been dealt with and I do not propose to deal with it at greater length.
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I say to him and to the House that I do not intend to give way again.
The leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), made an important point relating to clauses 5, 6 and 7 and their extra-territorial implications. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need for serious discussion and consultation with a large number of people before the House takes such a major legislative step, which, in effect, will give power in British law to other countries when we do not have any such control over other countries' laws?
I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the Bill and seen that the Government have taken steps to write safeguards into it. He will also be aware that the matter has been extensively discussed over a very long period before being put forward in legislation. I say both to my hon. Friend and to the leader of Plaid Cymru that one of the reasons for the precise nature of the Government's motion was to ensure that the House had the opportunity specifically to consider those clauses of the Bill and not to allow that time to be swallowed up by the debate on the earlier part of the Bill. The Government have tried to recognise the sensitivities that hon. Members have expressed and to deal with them.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who feels passionately and strongly about the liberties secured in the House, spoke about the liberties secured for him here. The principal reason why the Government are introducing the Bill is that securing our liberties and securing peace within the United Kingdom are of great importance to us all. That is why those on the Opposition Front Bench supported the manner in which the Government are proceeding. The matters before us are ones that, from time to time, have to be considered with a little more dispatch than is our wont. The hon. Gentleman also said that he hoped that we would march step in step with the Irish Parliament and Government; we are seeking to do so today.
|Division No. 357]||[4.54 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Campbell—Savours, Dale|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Cann, Jamie|
|Alexander, Douglas||Caplin, Ivor|
|Allen, Graham||Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Chaytor, David|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Chisholm, Malcolm|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Chope, Christopher|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Clappison, James|
|Banks, Tony||Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)|
|Barron, Kevin||Clark, Paul (Gillingham)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey|
|Bercow, John||Coaker, Vernon|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Coffey, Ms Ann|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Cohen, Harry|
|Berry, Roger||Coleman, Iain|
|Betts, Clive||Collins, Tim|
|Blair, Rt Hon Tony||Colman, Tony|
|Blizzard, Bob||Connarty, Michael|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Cooper, Yvette|
|Boateng, Paul||Corbett, Robin|
|Borrow, David||Cormack, Sir Patrick|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia||Cran, James|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Cranston, Ross|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Crausby, David|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)|
|Brazier, Julian||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)||Cummings, John|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John(Copeland)|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)|
|Browne, Desmond||Curry, Rt Hon David|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Darvill, Keith|
|Burden, Richard||Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Burns, Simon||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Davies, Quentin (Grantham)|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Denham, John||Jamieson, David|
|Dobbin, Jim||Jenkins, Brian|
|Dobson, Rt Hon Frank||Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Donohoe, Brian H|
|Doran, Frank||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)|
|Dowd, Jim||Jones, Helen (Warrington N)|
|Duncan, Alan||Jowell, Ms Tessa|
|Edwards, Huw||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Ellman, Mrs Louise||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Ennis, Jeff||Kelly, Ms Ruth|
|Etherington, Bill||Kemp, Fraser|
|Evans, Nigel||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Fallon, Michael||Key, Robert|
|Fisher, Mark||Kidney, David|
|Fitzpatrick, Jim||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Fitzsimons, Lorna||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|Flint, Caroline||King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Follett, Barbara||Kumar, Dr Ashok|
|Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Foster, Michael J (Worcester)||Lansley, Andrew|
|Foulkes, George||Laxton, Bob|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Leslie, Christopher|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Letwin, Oliver|
|Fraser, Christopher||Levitt, Tom|
|Fyfe, Maria||Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)|
|Gale, Roger||Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)|
|Gapes, Mike||Linton, Martin|
|Gardiner, Barry||Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)|
|George, Bruce (Walsall S)||Love, Andrew|
|Gibb, Nick||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Gibson, Dr Ian||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Gillan, Mrs Cheryl||McCabe, Steve|
|Gilroy, Mrs Linda||McCafferty, Ms Chris|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||McDonagh, Siobhain|
|Goggins, Paul||McIsaac, Shona|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew|
|Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Gordon, Mrs Eileen||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||McNulty, Tony|
|Green, Damian||MacShane, Denis|
|Greenway, John||McWalter, Tony|
|Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)||McWilliam, John|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Grocott, Bruce||Mallaber, Judy|
|Grogan, John||Mandelson, Peter|
|Hague, Rt Hon William||Maples, John|
|Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)||Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)|
|Hall, Patrick (Bedford)||Martlew, Eric|
|Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Hanson, David||Maxton, John|
|Hawkins, Nick||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||Meale, Alan|
|Heald, Oliver||Merron, Gillian|
|Healey, John||Michael, Alun|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Miller, Andrew|
|Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)||Moffatt, Laura|
|Heppell, John||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Hewitt, Ms Patricia||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|Home Robertson, John||Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||Moss, Malcolm|
|Hope, Phil||Mountford, Kali|
|Hopkins, Kelvin||Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)|
|Horam, John||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Norris, Dan|
|Hoyle, Lindsay||O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Humble, Mrs Joan||Olner, Bill|
|Hurst, Alan||O'Neill, Martin|
|Iddon, Dr Brian||Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Illsley, Eric||Osborne, Ms Sandra|
|Ingram, Adam||Page, Richard|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Paice, James|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)||Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Pearson, Ian||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Pendry, Tom||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Pickles, Eric||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Pickthall, Colin||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Pike, Peter L||Straw, Rt Hon Jack|
|Pollard, Kerry||Streeter, Gary|
|Pond, Chris||Stringer, Graham|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Prior, David||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Purchase, Ken||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|Quinn, Lawrie||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Raynsford, Nick||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)||Temple—Morris, Peter|
|Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Rogers, Allan||Tipping, Paddy|
|Rooker, Jeff||Touhig, Don|
|Rooney, Terry||Trend, Michael|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Trickett, Jon|
|Rowlands, Ted||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Roy, Frank||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Ruane, Chris||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Ruddock, Ms Joan||Wareing, Robert N|
|Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)||Waterson, Nigel|
|Salter, Martin||Watts, David|
|Savidge, Malcolm||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Sawford, Phil||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Willetts, David|
|Sheerman, Barry||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)||Wills, Michael|
|Smith, Angela (Basildon)||Wilson, Brian|
|Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)||Winnick, David|
|Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)||Woolas, Phil|
|Smith, John (Glamorgan)||Worthington, Tony|
|Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Snape, Peter||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Soames, Nicholas||Wyatt, Derek|
|Soley, Clive||Yeo, Tim|
|Spellar, John||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Starkey, Dr Phyllis||Mr. David Clelland and|
|Steen, Anthony||Mr. Greg Pope.|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||George, Andrew (St Ives)|
|Baker, Norman||Gorrie, Donald|
|Baldry, Tony||Grant, Bernie|
|Beggs, Roy||Gray, James|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Grieve, Dominic|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||Hayes, John|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward|
|Blunt, Crispin||Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Brady, Graham||Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Breed, Colin||Keetch, Paul|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)|
|Burnett, John||Laing, Mrs Eleanor|
|Burstow, Paul||Livsey, Richard|
|Cable, Dr Vincent||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Cash, William||Loughton, Tim|
|Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)||McAllion, John|
|Clwyd, Ann||McCartney, Robert (N Down)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||McDonnell, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Donaldson, Jeffrey||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||McNamara, Kevin|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Maginnis, Ken|
|Faber, David||Malins, Humfrey|
|Fabricant, Michael||Marshall-Andrews, Robert|
|Mates, Michael||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Mullin, Chris||Swayne, Desmond|
|Öpik, Lembit||Swinney, John|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Paterson, Owen||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Randall, John||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Rendel, David||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Robathan, Andrew||Tredinnick, David|
|Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)||Trimble, Rt Hon David|
|Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)||Walter, Robert|
|Ross, William (E Lond'y)||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)||Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd|
|Ruffley, David||Willis, Phil|
|Russell, Bob (Colchester)||Wise, Audrey|
|St Aubyn, Nick|
|Salmond, Alex||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Mr. Peter Brooke and|
|Skinner, Dennis||Mr. Richard Shepherd.|
1.(1) Proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill shall be taken and concluded at today's sitting; and for this purpose—
(2) For the purpose of concluding proceedings in accordance with sub-paragraphs 1(d) and (e), the Chair shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
2. At the sitting tomorrow—