We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
If I may, Mr. Bercow, I will take up what the Minister said. We clearly are in need of, and are likely to have, a substantial debate on the issues in schedule 1. I am happy to confine those issues to schedule 1. That schedule has one amendment, and I wondered what the best way to deal procedurally with that would be, before I lost the opportunity to raise anything under clause 22. I would have suggested that it might be sensible to start with a general debate on schedule 1, rather than focus on the amendment, but I will be guided by you, Mr. Bercow, as long as we can have that debate on the issues in schedule 1.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his points. We intend to proceed by first debating Government amendment No. 75. I recognise that that is a relatively narrow matter, but, procedurally, we deal with that first. We dispose of it, and then move on to a full debate, if that is what members of the Committee seek, on schedule 1.
Purely for the record, it is clearly the intent of the clause purely and simply to introduce schedule 1. I can do no better than simply read the clause. It states:
“Schedule 1 to this Act contains amendments relating to the period for which a person may be detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (arrest and detention of suspected terrorists)”— and no more than that. Even the most suspicious, cynical and paranoid members of the Committee could see that it does no more than introduce the substantial point for our deliberations—schedule 1. I commend the clause to the Committee.