|Sitting||Proceedings||Time for conclusion of proceedings|
|9th||Clauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3||—|
|10th||Clauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3||—|
|11th||Clauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3||—|
|13th||Clauses 70 to 85||1.00 pm|
|14th||Clause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules||—|
|15th||Clause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules||5.00 pm|
Criminal Justice and Police Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:15 am on 1st March 2001.
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You will have seen that I tried to rise during the debate that we have just had on the programme motion. The Minister took up 14 minutes of a 30-minute debate on the matter, which relates to the highly controversial issue of programming. I wonder whether you might be able to take back to the Speaker, through whatever channels are available, the message that 30 minutes for such a debate is plainly inadequate, as is the entire business of programming, which does not enable someone like myself, who has, as the Minister said, been tentative and constructive in handling the Bill, even to make my views known on the programming. I have extreme views about the way in which the Government have behaved.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister referred to the usual channels. I was keen to place on the record precisely what discussions we had had through the usual channels—I know that that is a breach of convention, but as the Minister raised the matter, it was important that I should have an opportunity to do so. I regret the curtailment of democracy this morning, and that discussion of that curtailment has itself been curtailed to only half an hour. Would it be possible to ask for an extension of such debates in future?
Although those are points of interest to the Chair, they are certainly not points of order for the Chair. I have made my view known, and will make my views further known to the Chairmen's Panel, which in turn will express a view to the Modernisation Committee. It is of course open to any hon. Member to make representations to that Committee. Whether members of the Committee like it or not—and whether the Chairman likes it or not—we must operate under the rules and regulations of the House as they stand.
It is a separate issue, Mr. Gale. When you make your representations to the Modernisation Committee, would you be prepared to consider whether those who are not members of Programming Sub-Committees, but who are able to attend, should be able to speak but not vote, rather than simply attending, neither speaking nor voting?
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who is a member of the Programming Sub-Committee, could not attend yesterday because she was in her constituency—the date of the meeting having been fixed only after it became impossible to alter her arrangements. Given that one provision of the resolution that we have just passed is that we sit next Wednesday when the House is sitting, albeit in Westminster Hall, may I ask whether, if a preferable time for the additional sitting were discovered in informal conversation, you would be willing—because I believe that it is in your discretion—to call a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to agree an alteration? I have objections about other matters, but that is one issue on which it may be possible to reach an accommodation across the Committee. If that were the case, would you be willing to preside over a meeting to deal with that?
The hon. Gentleman is correct that it is open to the Chairman to receive representations concerning further sittings of the Programming Sub-Committee. If I receive such representations from the usual channels, and it appears reasonable, the Chairman is of course at the Committee's disposal and I shall endeavour to accommodate the Committee. However, I point out that we sat for a considerable time last night and the Committee has further discussed the issue this morning and has just passed the Programming Sub-Committee's resolution. At the moment, those are the terms under which the Committee will now sit. Under those terms, we have probably had sufficient discussion on the subject.
One moment, Dr. Ladyman. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the point that time is at a premium. We are now spending time discussing matters that could properly be discussed outside the Committee and informally, rather than discussing the matters that we are here to discuss formally. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a specific point to make, I propose to proceed.
On Second Reading, I said that I wanted amendments to the Bill to help to protect scientists, one of which was an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to prevent terrorists from acting in concert. Have you, Mr. Gale, been given any indication whether the Government intend to table such an amendment in time for us to discuss it in Committee?
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that however much Chairmen may wish it, the Government do not normally make their intentions known in advance to Chairmen of whatever party. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point, the Minister has heard it and, again, I am sure that that can be discussed informally.
[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]