HC Deb 05 December 2001 vol 376 cc368-86

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4 December], That,

  1. (1)At the sittings on Tuesday 11 th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and
  2. (2)At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question again proposed.

5.40 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to continue the remarks that I was making last night. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I begin by apologising for the fact that I shall not be giving way to right hon. and hon. Members as generously as I did last night, when I gave way—I have counted—on 23 separate occasions. The House may feel that I had rather a good innings last night and that I might therefore be trespassing on the House's patience if I speak too long today.

There is another reason why I shall not give way so often. I anticipate that the Government will seek to bring this debate to a conclusion within an hour or so of its start. I also suspect that various hon. Members who were in the Chamber yesterday, most of whom remained in the Chamber throughout last night's proceedings, will wish to say something in this debate. I have in mind specifically the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but there may be others and I apologise if I have omitted anyone. I hope that it will be possible for at least those hon. Members to participate, if that is what they wish. It is with that in mind that I shall be much briefer than I would have otherwise been. I am also conscious that I have had an opportunity–51 minutes or so—to express my views.

There is one other bit of business. May I welcome the Leader of the House to the debate? He was in the Chamber yesterday for the opening speech, but then he departed. He will see from the record that I made some pretty uncharitable remarks about his not being here. However, I am glad to see that, at least this afternoon, at a more convenient hour, he is on the Treasury Bench. I welcome that fact because this is an important debate.

There is one more point that I should deal with before coming to the substance of the debate. The House will be asking itself—it might be helpful to know—why it is that we are debating something now that we were debating about eight or nine hours ago. Last night, we were debating the business motion, the effect of which is in reality to conclude debate on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill on Thursday 13 December—for reasons that I explained yesterday—at 7 o'clock. Various right hon. and hon. Members—including me, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—felt very strongly about that. There are powerful arguments against the proposals and those hon. Members advanced them powerfully.

There were, however, only about two more speeches to be made last night, when it became apparent that the Government were going to move a closure. We knew that because those of us who have been in this place for some time suddenly saw that the Labour Benches, which had been largely deserted, had begun to fill up. We also saw the Government Whips chuntering together in the way that they usually do. We therefore knew that there was going to be a closure.

Liberal Democrat Members—I commend them on this—hit upon a procedural device: to move that the House sit in private. As I understand it, that was the first time since 1958 that that has happened. Unfortunately for the Government, however, at that critical moment, they were plotting closure. So when Liberal Democrat Members moved the motion, there was no one to cry no. The consequence was that we went into private session, the Galleries were cleared, the amplifiers were switched off, Hansard departed

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is not going to speak at quite the same length as he did yesterday, but he is now giving a blow by blow account of what happened in the Chamber last night. Perhaps he could turn to the substance of his remarks.

Mr. Hogg

As there was not a record of the proceedings, an account might be helpful; but I have of course finished my reprise. I have explained why we are having this debate today. However, we are debating a very serious point.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we seem to be able to debate the motion in prime time today without any real inconvenience to the Government's agenda for today? Would he like to try to explain why the Government thought that they could not do today what they tried to do in the middle of last night? The public should be made aware of that.

Mr. Hogg

My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. This is an important business motion and it was being secreted through last night. What is more, it would have been voted on by the deferred voting procedure, which means that hon. Members sign a visiting book on Wednesdays. I refuse to participate in that process, because it is wrong in principle. It is right and proper that matters of importance should be debated on the Floor of the House in prime time and that right hon. and hon. Members should vote in the ordinary way.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

I endorse the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was the objective of my colleagues and I at all stages to try to achieve three objectives procedurally. First, we wanted to raise the issues and get answers to the questions. Secondly, we wanted to have the debate at a proper time when it could be heard and reported and people such as the Leader of the House could be present. Thirdly, we wanted to be able to vote at the end of the relevant debate. We have managed to achieve that, if through a rather unusual device. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his assistance.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. His motives were as he has stated, and I supported them. He has brought about a most desirable outcome. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am being churlish if I do not give way much more, because I want to allow other hon. Members to participate.

I have taken the liberty of saying that this is a serious matter. I have spoken many times on the Bill and I have advanced the generality of my argument against it. I shall not repeat that today, because those who are interested know why I am against it. I oppose especially the manner of its enactment.

The Lords messages mentioned in the motion are the amendments that will come from the other place. The plain truth is that we have no idea of the weight or the content of those messages. That being so, we cannot tell whether the proposed ending at 7 pm on Thursday 13 December is reasonable. We are asked to assume that it is, but nobody—not even Government Front Benchers—can say that it is because we will not know what the messages are until the Lords delivers them.

Another related point is that it is important that those institutions outside the House with real concerns about the Bill—I hope that Government Front Benchers will understand that there are many of those—should have an opportunity properly to make their representations on the amendments as they come from the other place, and as they go back and forth. The procedure that we would adopt under the business motion would actively prevent that from happening, and that is wrong.

We have been told by the Minister—I am not sure that he intended to be quite as candid as he was—that we would have a timetable motion to govern the process of business on the messages. He will realise that the nature of the timetable—and, indeed, the nature of today's business motion—cannot properly be determined until we know the number, weight and content of the Lords messages. In reality, the timetable and the motion should not be laid until the messages are identified. In any event, the timetable will be shaped by the business motion, rather than the other way round. A timetable should be drawn so as to ensure that the House has a proper opportunity to debate the legislation, and the business motion should reflect the time needed. In fact, the timetable will be the subject of the artificial constraint imposed by the business motion.

Another point concerns the statutory instruments. The Minister told us last night—it was fair of him to do so—that secondary legislation would be introduced, pursuant to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and I made the point that the documents will already be in existence, albeit that they will be called drafts. If the Minister had wanted to, he could have laid those documents in the Library—he still could—or read them out in extenso, although you might stop him, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, the House could be told the contents of the statutory instruments. It is unsatisfactory that we should not know those contents or be able to discuss them before we determine the end date. The statutory instruments may be offensive in themselves. Indeed, they may be so offensive that we might not want the Bill to pass at all. That is a point that we cannot judge until we see the statutory instrument, and we shall not see that until we are given an end date.

From time to time last night, I approached the debate with a certain levity, as did other hon. Members. It was a fine occasion. I enjoyed it, and I think that other hon. Members did too. However, this is a very serious matter. Although I have not always been able to secure the support of Conservative Front-Bench Members, I have consistently opposed the Bill because it seriously abrogates legal and civil rights.

Sometimes a case can be made for abrogating such rights, and I am prepared to accept that there may be a case for some abrogation in respect of some parts of the Bill. However, no such case can be made for the Bill in its entirety. If the Government are going to abrogate civil, legal and political rights, they must do so in the proper way, with full and proper discussion in Parliament.

The House will vote on the business motion later, and I do not suppose that Labour Members will support us on the matter. However, in the Division Lobby they will have an opportunity—which I hope they will take—to say to Ministers, "Look, my friends, what we are doing is wrong. What is more, we must not do it again." If they do that, the action taken by Liberal Democrat Members last night, which I supported, and the words spoken in this debate will have been worthwhile. A very important principle is at stake. We neglect it at the country's peril, and in breach of the duties that we owe our constituents.

5.52 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I begin by expressing my gratitude to hon. Members of all parties. Hansard shows that the motion that I put to the House at 12.52 this morning was passed nem. con. I am grateful to all hon. Members for allowing the House to use that safety valve. There are not many safety valves left now, but hon. Members' response to my motion was very helpful.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the result is that we have brought out of the dark obscurity of the early hours of the morning into the relatively bright light of prime-time business some extremely important issues. It would be improper to refer to any of the discussion that took place after the motion was passed. Even though the present Bill is not likely to be retrospective, I suspect that the Home Office, and the Home Secretary, in their current mood, would have me locked up if I referred to any matters discussed in private session.

As was said last night, I do not believe that any Member of this House or the other place is not committed to effective measures to deal with terrorism. There was some suggestion, or spin, that anyone who resisted the business motion was somehow against the emergency measures needed to deal with terrorism. That is a canard, and it is not fair on the Labour Members of the two Houses—let alone anyone else—who have major misgivings about the Bill and the way that it has been handled. Our lack of wholehearted, comprehensive and unquestioning commitment to the handling of the Bill and all of its contents does not mean that we are not committed to the defeat of international terrorism.

Another advantage of bringing the matter before the House in prime time is that we have the pleasure of the company of the Leader of the House, who will recognise the text that I am about to quote. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate found that the sampler above his bed—when he finally got there in the early hours—still carried the motto, written in proper, traditional Victorian woven script, "Good government and effective scrutiny go together."

The Leader of the House said that to the Hansard Society on 12 July. He added that it was part of the exercise of achieving good government that this House and the other place must undertake their scrutiny roles with responsibility and proper dispatch. That is why it is so extraordinary that in the circumstances already described, the House is being asked to prejudge, in effect, the validity and value of amendments coming from another place. We do not know how substantial they will be.

In previous Parliaments, it may have been possible for Ministers in the House of Commons to take the view that the opinions of people in the House of Lords could be discarded. However, the first of this Government's reforms of Parliament has given the Lords a new legitimacy. It is only right, therefore, that we take more notice of what the House of Lords says on matters such as this.

Moreover, the Leader of the House told us a few weeks ago that he thought that the House of Lords in its present form was so good that he was prepared to countenance a substantial number of appointed members in the second phase of reform. That gives additional legitimacy to the House of Lords.

We cannot therefore prejudge that what we get from the other place can be discarded because it has no value or validity. We cannot assume in advance that the amendments that the House of Lords has not even tabled yet will not be valid. Indeed, Labour Members in the other place may be disposed to accept some of those amendments, which makes it very important that we do not tie ourselves down to a business motion, in the format that is before the House today, that prejudges that issue.

Mr. Gummer

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the business managers of both Opposition parties could have come to an accommodation with the Government to ensure proper opportunities for the discussion of Lords amendments without interfering with what remains of the Government's programme?

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that that offer was made, informally, through the usual channels, and I shall return to how we could have found more time to do what he suggested.

It is critical for the House to know what amendments will come from another place before we tie ourselves to a programme. Those amendments themselves can be amended, and we need time to assess whether they can be improved still further and thereby achieve the sort of compromise that many hon. Members want. However, the other place may complete its scrutiny only of the Bill late on Tuesday night. We will be able to see the amendments that are tabled then and on the subsequent day, so the opportunity for intelligent amendment—informed by people in the House and outside it, as was noted earlier and, indeed, last night—will be limited. The Bill is big, and covers many issues, and such amendment is very important.

There may be circumstances in which the Government are disposed to accept all the amendments that come from the other place. If so, why do they not accept them now?

That would save the House a lot of trouble, but we must assume that the Government will not accept them all, but resist some. However, if they are going to accept the amendments passed in the other place, the sooner they tell us which they will accept, the better. That will allow us to deal with the amendments more expeditiously.

For the moment, I shall assume that the Government will dig in their heels. The indications, from the Home Secretary down, are that that is the Government's mood. In those circumstances, hon. Members have a responsibility to provide proper and careful scrutiny of the improvements that have been suggested. We do not want to put on to the statute book legislation of this importance that is full of loopholes and problems.

Moreover, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, that is not the whole story. As its name implies, secondary legislation is secondary to primary legislation. We cannot know how apt, apposite and effective that secondary legislation is until we know what the primary legislation is. We cannot know how legitimate, proper and in order the secondary amendments are until we see what amendments come back from the Lords. We need to know the reaction of Ministers. Will they be prepared to accept some amendments, will they want to amend others, and will the House come to the view that compromise on some is a possibility?

That was clearly spelt out in the watches of last night. The Parliamentary Secretary was honest enough to say that there is a whole package of secondary legislation to follow. We cannot take a view about the legitimacy of such legislation until we have seen the amendments to the original legislation.

As you will have heard last night, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are views about the Bill on both sides of the House. It is an unusual Bill. The unkind might refer to it as a ragbag; I have described it as the good, the bad and the downright ugly. More charitably, it could be called a portmanteau Bill. It certainly covers a huge range of issues of varying urgency and impact upon basic civil liberties and human rights. Inevitably, parts of it raise different issues with different people. It is unusual in that respect, because there are so many aspects to its clauses. In those circumstances, it is not unnatural for Members of the other House, let alone Members of this one, to respond differently to its different parts.

The legislation that is put before us is often not only short but directly focused and Members on both sides can take a broad-band approach to it. They know where they are on a Bill's basic issues and how they will respond to its different parts. That is not the case with this Bill. As happens often in debates in the other place, there has been a judicial review of parts of the Bill, independent of party politics. The bishops have had a view about specific aspects, although it would not be proper for me to go into detail. It is equally true that some distinguished and experienced Members of the Labour party in the other place have major misgivings about parts of the Bill.

The Leader of the House, no less, has been saying how important it is for the revising second Chamber of this Parliament to be independent of Government and to have expertise and experience to bring to its responsibilities. As we have in this place skimped Report and had no Third Reading debate, it is not unnatural that we have to rely on our colleagues at the other end of the building to do some careful detailed scrutiny of these issues. It would be outrageous if, after all the good work that they had done on our behalf, we then said, "We don't care what they said. Let's tear it up and get on with the job." That would be a negation of the responsibility of Parliament which, the Leader of the House has frequently reminded us, lies upon our shoulders.

We still do not know what will happen under the business motion. Will there be a ping-pong situation? Will there be an opportunity for sensible people to sit down and achieve some compromise, perhaps even taking out of the Bill those issues that are not urgent and with which it is not necessary to deal immediately? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred last night to issues that predate the terrorist attacks on 11 September. They cannot be regarded as so urgent as to be necessary now.

It was apparent from the way in which the debate began to develop last night that there is no parliamentary imperative, let alone an outside imperative. We have yet to hear anyone say that the Bill must reach the statute book next week or terrorists will attack on Christmas day. It is outrageous for anyone to pretend that we must have the Bill then, to the day.

I have pointed out to the Leader of the House that he unexpectedly gave us an extra day for the Christmas recess. Most of us knew that we were going to be here on Thursday 20 December, and then he told us that we were to rise on Wednesday 19 December. So there is room for shunting; we can find more time.

What imperative demands that we must complete all our study of, and responsibility for, the Bill by the night of 13 December, given that it is complex, contentious and that there is opposition to it within Government ranks in both Houses? There is one date that makes that essential, but it is nothing to do with Parliament, the quality of the Bill or the opposition to it in either House. It is simply that on 14 December, the Prime Minister is due to go to the European summit at Laeken in Belgium. He wants to take in his back pocket a Christmas present from the Houses of Parliament and say, "Look what a good boy am I. I am getting tough on terrorism. I have a derogation from my Parliament on the European convention of human rights. Why don't you?" That is what it is all about.

It is the Prime Minister's imperative, for political reasons. It is not to improve the legislation or to put on the statute book a measure of which we will be proud in years to come and which we will know was the right response to an emergency. This will be a tawdry Act because it has been dealt with in a tawdry fashion.

6.6 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I have been truly amazed by the moderation shown by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and my own. This is a monstrous process. Their decent evaluation of whether there is merit in all the contentions in the Bill has been exemplary. In point of fact, the argument on many of the clauses has never pointed to how they relate to the special new circumstances that have arisen since 11 September that mean that this country's very survival is at risk.

I object strongly to this process. I was very grateful when your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, confirmed that last night was the first time since 1958 that the House has sat in secrecy, and it should be on a measure such as this. That is consonant with the Government's argument that we are in a state of emergency. That was the proposition put by the Home Secretary, who has indicated that he will not yield in the Lords.

I have no doubt what the motion means. The Government are on a journey of coercion. They are saying to the Lords as best they can—we will be the puppets, the shadow, in this parliamentary process—"You will deliver us this Bill in the shape that we require it by a certain date." They have no power to enforce that, but I saw the Lords yield during the seven times that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill ping-ponged between this place and the other. Their Lordships blinked. Anyone who has taken the most casual glance at the proceedings of the other place will know that they have had the leisure and appropriate time to discuss and weigh up important and entire issues. The Government have tried to drive through this monstrous piece of legislation, unjustified in so many of its particulars, in 16 hours, including all the time needed for votes.

I am amazed that the Government troubled with the House of Commons. They have set a new record in deeming that which has not happened to have happened. I am surprised that they did not reach into their armoury, having set a precedent in the constitutional history of this country, and have the House declare—there are enough willing Labour Members for them to do so—that this process is taking place without debate. We are very close to such a situation.

I hope that this coercive measure fails. I am mindful that we have not been allowed a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss matters such as habeas corpus, internment, new religious hatred laws and the third pillar of Maastricht. We have had 14 minutes, with a 90-minute order, directly to translate into British laws a change in our criminal laws that affects our constituents and that has been constructed out of a secret meeting somewhere on the continent. That is monstrous. We are prepared to suspend habeas corpus and to bring in internment in this country.

I am anxious about this vast portmanteau Bill, which has imported a whole series of concepts that have no relationship—certainly none has been demonstrated—to the dangerous circumstances that arose on 11 September. I am surprised only that the Home Secretary did not grasp the opportunity to deliver some of the contentions of the Auld report and to take away our right to trial by jury. The Bill would have provided a good opportunity.

I want the world outside to know what has gone on in this House of Commons: without knowing about the weight, import, number or seriousness of Lords provisions, motions such as this are hung in front of us, late at night, in secrecy—as if we were in wartime circumstances—with the microphones turned off, with one good, loyal citizen in the Public Gallery waving goodbye as we close down the House of Commons to outsiders. [Interruption.] It is said that the Liberal Democrats closed down the House, but they could not do that. It is the duty of the Government to secure the business of the House and the country. Hon. Members should reflect on the purpose of this Chamber.

The motion demonstrates that we are nothing. I do not understand why Labour Members cannot stand up for things that we have believed in all our lives, such as habeas corpus, one of the most important features in banishing slavery from these shores.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shepherd

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not. I am mindful of the time constraints, because there will, of course, be a closure motion.

We can push away consideration of important matters. We do not know the terms of the guillotine motion. The guillotine that the Government will impose next week will tell us whether they will even allow us to have a serious discussion of the serious amendments that we were unable to debate when the Bill was previously before the House.

If the country thinks that its liberties are defended by this Chamber, it is very, very wrong. I want liberty to be defended by this Chamber, but now we are looking to an appointed House—an appointed House: what shame!—to make and defend the liberties and traditions of our country. That is why I oppose this abysmal, outrageous motion. It is all part of the attempt to create a climate in which people believe that this country is in such a desperate plight that the very life of the nation is under threat. It is not. No one believes that.

We believe in proper, targeted, particularised measures to supplement those that already exist. The Government have no sense of country, and in one real sense, terrorism wins a significant battle with this form of legislation. I wish that the House would open up and recognise what we have become: we are nothing when Governments can jig around with their majority, with no debate on the substance of the basic freedoms for which this House came into existence. That is the purpose of the House but the Government will not permit its achievement.

6.13 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

I hope that the House will reflect on the superb sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We are doing something significant. Sadly, I do not have the same credibility as those Members who have already spoken as I was not here last night. I was speaking at a populist gathering in London that went on until a late hour. However, through the brilliance of the House of Commons, I have been able to read the Hansard report of the debate that took place last night. In fairness, we should give credit to Hansard for recording everything that took place before the House went into private session.

I have some brief points. I hope that the House of Commons will appreciate that the Bill is desperately important; it is of great significance. When we consider that all the changes that we are making in relation to the third pillar of Maastricht were discussed in 12 minutes in this place, we realise that we are treating legislation with contempt. The time taken to push the measure through shows that we are not taking democracy seriously. I fear that the motion shows that, too.

Mr. Gummer

Does my hon. Friend agree that although we hold opposite views on Maastricht and the third pillar, we share precisely the same views on the means that the Government are using to pass measures with no debate in the House of Commons? Does not the fact that we can stand together on that show exactly how desperate the Government have become?

Sir Teddy Taylor

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend agrees with me, as I have been complaining for many, many years—in fact, since 1973—about the vicious and spiteful way in which Governments of both parties have forced through European legislation. I know that he would have been no part of that. Certainly, something significant has happened.

We should also seriously consider the fact that the motion means that we cannot have adequate debate. We are talking about being limited to only two and a half parliamentary days. We do not know what other business will be proposed during that time. If the votes take place after 10 o'clock, it will not be possible to proceed with them. There would have to be a deferred vote on the following Wednesday, which would mean that the Government could not complete their timetable. Unless there is a tightly drawn timetable motion, it will be impossible to hold the relevant debates.

The House should consider whether the motion will help the passage of the Bill. I have noticed that, as a result of all the recent changes, whereas the Lords used to be a quiet and inoffensive body, it now appears to take its democratic responsibilities more seriously. Will we help to get the measure through and create the good will that the Government obviously require if we proceed as we are doing?

We are treating the House of Commons with contempt, forcing through massive legislation with no proper discussion. What the Government are doing will create more trouble; it will not solve problems. I certainly appreciate that the Government are anxious to pass measures on security speedily, but what they are doing is insulting to our democratic traditions and may result in their not getting legislation that they particularly want.

There is not enough time properly to consider the measure or discuss Lords amendments properly. I fear that the result will not be to help pass the measure but a lack of good will.

Finally, I hope that Members will think about what happened at the last general election. The vital aspect of that election was not who won, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal. It was the massive number of people who did not vote. Among younger people, there was not even the slightest interest in politics. The way that we carry on is driving people away from their democratic responsibilities.

When people realise how we forced through this massive, important measure in such an appalling way, they will feel that there is little point in the democratic process. The House should think about the massive strike action taken by the voters. If we treat democracy with contempt, we shall simply add to that process and there will be less participation in democracy.

I hope that the House will think about those matters because what we are doing today will not help. It will create more problems, more confusions and more delay.

6.19 pm
Norman Baker (Lewes)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a less eventful sitting than when you last occupied it. It is, of course, an irony that we seem almost to have time aplenty to discuss a motion that contains little of substance, whereas we had almost no time at all to debate a huge raft of terribly important and controversial provisions that will affect this country for many years to come.

The Government told us that the allocation of time was such that they could spare no more time to debate the Bill in Committee, or on Report or Third Reading, yet by the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), we have managed to find an extra hour or so and, indeed, a couple of hours of Government time last night to debate what was called a piffling motion. One wonders why the Government were not able to find more time to debate the Bill, and questions should be asked about that.

At the beginning of the debate last night, the Parliamentary Secretary—who has his back turned to me—was, I am afraid, left alone on the Treasury Bench through no fault of his own. With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a good deal of respect—is not able to assess whether the motion is adequate because he is not over-familiar with the Bill. One has to have gone through the Bill in detail to understand exactly whether the motion is appropriate and what is likely to happen in the other place. I should have thought that a Home Office Minister might have taken the trouble to stay with him on the Treasury Bench last night to advise him, but that was not the case.

It was also a great pity that the motion seems to have been drafted by members of the Government, whose duty is to get business through the House, rather than by those who may have anything important to say about the Bill and who want to reflect on the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have about it.

Simon Hughes

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the other criticisms that has still not been remedied—perhaps the Minister will help us in his winding-up speech—is that we still do not have any indication of the timetable under the motion. A further guillotine motion may well be imposed on debate next week. If we at least knew the structure of next week, we might be somewhat better off, but that is another secret not so far revealed to hon. Members, let alone Opposition Members.

Norman Baker

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the only certainty that we have is the motion. We have no certainty about the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords; about whether Labour peers will table amendments; or about whether the Government will accept any amendment. We have no certainty about the timing in the House of Commons; about any guillotine motion; or about what interested external groups will have to say about the Bill. We have no certainty about anything, apart from the fact that the Government want to railroad the Bill through the House, irrespective of the outcome in the other place. That is the only certainty about which the Government seem to be interested.

I suspect that a good number of amendments will come from the other place. If the House of Lords is doing its job properly, it will want properly to reflect on the fact that this House has not been able to consider whole swathes of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) correctly said. I pay tribute to him for the conviction and passion with which he speaks on such issues.

For example, part 11, on the retention of communications data, was not discussed for one minute in the House, yet it contains huge powers that will allow the Home Secretary to accumulate data in pursuit of not simply terrorists, but those involved in any criminal activity under clause 101(5)(b). That is a matter of profound importance, but we had not one minute to discuss it.

I had only one and a half minutes in which to discuss the transportation of nuclear material, and we are entitled to know more about that. The House spent only one and a half minutes on that part of the Bill, and we spent very little time on a range of other issues. We spent barely enough time even on the topics that we did discuss—whether it was Ministry of Defence police or face masks.

I contrast that with the time that we have had to debate the Proceeds of Crime Bill in Committee. That Bill has been properly timetabled, and there have been good debates. To be fair to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), when the Opposition Members who serve on that Committee have asked him whether he has thought about an issue, he has said, "No, I haven't, but it's a good point and I'll go away and consider it." Ministers have not had the opportunity to do that with this Bill because the Opposition have not been able to ask, "Have you thought about this sentence?"

Simon Hughes

My hon. Friend may not have had a chance to read this yet, but I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced its second report on the Bill this morning and has found many of the Government's concessions to be inadequate. It has suggested that the Bill needs to amended in many other ways. With a week to go, all parties in both Houses say that the Bill is inadequate, especially in its human rights aspects. That report has not yet been considered. Does my hon. Friend agree that such Committees were set up to give advice, but it seems that there will be no chance to take that Committee's advice, let alone to act on it?

Norman Baker

My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. What are those Committees for? I serve on the Human Rights Committee, as does the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and it has said that it is very worried about the Bill and that, in certain aspects, it is inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing about that? They have tabled no amendments to deal with those issues. Instead, the Bill is steamrollered through the House. Those Committees seem to be a sop, so that the Government can say that they exist, that they are wonderful and that they are committed to human rights. However, when they propose something that the Government do not like, they are completely swept out of the way.

Worse than that, when the House had a debate of sorts—was it in Committee, or on Report or Third Reading?—a Minister told us that debate and voting were shenanigans and that we were wasting time. What are we here for if not to debate and vote? It seems as though the Government want to close things down and run through their business as soon as possible and that they think the Opposition are a bit of nuisance and wish they would go away. The Bill will not go away. It is very controversial, and its consequences will be seen throughout the land if the Government do not listen.

The Government still have time to listen to the House of Lords and to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and—dare I say?—their own Back Benchers. Let us not forget that the gloss of support does not extend to Labour Back Benchers. They are just as unhappy with the Bill as Opposition Members. If the Government have any sense, even at this late stage, they will make more time for the Bill and listen to some of the comments that hon. Members have made.

6.26 pm
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)

I shall be brief. We have heard some extremely powerful arguments during the debate, but exclusively from Opposition Members. The Government know that there is no satisfactory answer to many of the points that have been made. Of course, we do not know what Lords messages will be received, but we do know that, at worst, the motion could be oppressive and, at best, it is premature, and we shall divide the House.

6.27 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg)

Hon. Members raised a number of issues last night, early this morning and this afternoon, and I shall do my best to deal with them clearly and succinctly, although there has been rather more heat than light during the debate, especially last night and in the early hours of this morning.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—an hon. Gentleman for whom I have great respect—made an extraordinary contribution this afternoon, in which he questioned the patriotism of Government Members because of the business motion. I hope that, on reflection, he will accept that his remarks were over the top and deeply offensive.

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred in his closing remarks to the disconnection between the public and the House and, in particular, to the disconnection between young people and politics. I can think of nothing more that would switch off young people from politics than the scenes that we witnessed in the Chamber in the early hours of this morning, with the pathetic use of filibustering tactics by the Liberal Democrats and some Conservative Back Benchers.

I should like to address the specific points that have been raised. First, several hon. Members have suggested that the Divisions on matters relating to the Lords messages might be deferred. I can absolutely reassure the House that that would not be the case. The Sessional Order that relates to the deferral of Divisions is very clear. It states that Divisions on questions relating to motions … in the course of proceedings on bills and on a number of other matters will not be deferred, so there will not be a deferred Division.

We had a somewhat protracted discussion at the beginning of last night's proceedings about the meaning of the word "Thursday" and how long next Thursday will last. The answer is very much as suggested by several Opposition Members: Thursday could well continue beyond that which we would conventionally understand Thursday to be. Thursday will continue either until both Houses have agreed to an Act and Royal Assent has been notified or until it is clear that no agreement can be reached. I very much hope that the House will not break the previous record established during the consideration of the Coercion Bill in 1881, when the day lasted for 41 and a half hours. It appears that compromise is possible, so Thursday may be extended.

That connects to my third point, which is about the time available for debate. Several Opposition Members have raised the reasonable concern that there should be sufficient time on the Floor of the House to debate the Lords messages. In particular, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that issue and, when he intervened last night, I said that there would be a supplementary programme motion. It will obviously be drafted once we have received the messages from the Lords and in the light of the number of amendments that are before the House. The House will decide on that motion and, although I can give no guarantees, I will pass to those involved in drawing up the motion the concerns that have been expressed in the debate.

Simon Hughes

One of the few certainties that we have is that the Lords expect to finish their Third Reading debate next Tuesday evening. Given that, can the Minister give us any indication as to what, if any, business will be taken here next Tuesday evening if this motion is passed? For example, will we debate a timetable motion then or will it be brought before the House on the Wednesday? After we know what the Lords have sent us on Tuesday evening, will there be an opportunity for all the parties concerned to be able to discuss the issue so that we can have some management of the remaining time if, unhappily, the House agrees to this motion?

Mr. Twigg

Certainly every attempt will be made to ensure that all parties are involved. I made it clear in my opening remarks yesterday that we would not move immediately to discuss the Lords messages on Tuesday night. We would have a printed version, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal thanked me for that in his contribution. I can give the broad assurance that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) seeks. There will be cross-party involvement in drawing up the programme motion and we will not move immediately to discussion on Tuesday night. We will move to the concrete discussion on Wednesday.

Mr. Hogg


Mr. Twigg

I do not intend to take any further interventions, because I shall speak for just another five minutes. I took many interventions yesterday and I have promised Members on both sides to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.

Several hon. Members have mentioned consultation, but I fear that Opposition Members protest rather too much on that point. Some said that they want to have the opportunity to consult outside organisations and, of course, that is extremely important. However, none of us can have failed to have noticed that there has been extensive debate, discussion and consultation since 11 September about the nature of the response. Yes, there is controversy and discussion, but no one can really say that we have not had full debate and an opportunity for outside organisations to influence the proceedings in this House and the other place.

Several hon. Members referred to secondary legislation, so let me make clear the basis for that. The special meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September set 1 January 2002 as the deadline for implementing the 1995 and 1996 European Union extradition conventions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is publicly committed to meeting that deadline and actual implementation will follow, as required in the conventions, 90 days later. However, the Home Secretary will want to meet the legislative deadline in the terrorism road map agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

Several hon. Members have asked that we make the regulations available publicly in draft. I am advised that they are being finalised and that they will be made available as soon as it is possible to do so, although that is unlikely to be much before they are laid before Parliament. Next week we will, however, be able to provide a summary of the main effects of the regulations on the Extradition Act 1989. In advance of that, the Government's proposals to implement the two conventions can be found in the consultation paper issued in March this year, "The Law on Extradition: A Review".

The motion on secondary legislation will be required precisely because the House cannot take a view on secondary legislation until the primary legislation is passed. The House, however, has procedures for considering secondary legislation. All measures under the Justice and Home Affairs Council will take place under the affirmative procedure and will therefore be subject to debate.

Finally, let me say a few words about the conduct of the debate last night and today. Last night, the Liberal Democrats took advantage of parliamentary procedure in an attempt to derail discussion of the Bill. The official Opposition co-operated with the Government to get a sensible solution, but some Conservative Back Benchers joined the Liberal Democrats in resorting to arcane parliamentary procedure to frustrate debate.

Ironically, the reasons that the Liberal Democrats have given to explain their actions do not stand up. A motion to sit in private does not prevent another motion for closure. Even if the Government were contemplating a tactic of closure, it would have been within the discretion of the Chair whether to allow a such a motion. Therefore, like many outside, I find the tactics of the Liberal Democrats baffling.

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the Minister and he has referred to legislation on extradition. He knows perfectly well that the European Union arrest warrant, which was due to be considered and completed on 7 December, cannot be carried through in the way that the Government and the European Council originally intended, because the Government completely fouled up their own legislation two days ago. Furthermore, the measure is subject to a scrutiny reserve. Will the—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)

Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Twigg

I welcome the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to the debate; it is certainly the first time that I have seen him. Clearly a mention of Europe aroused his instant interest as he sits in his previous position on the Back Benches rather than in his new position on the Front Bench.

We heard a number of interesting contributions that did not relate directly to the motion. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has become a belated convert to modernisation with his criticism of late-night sittings and late-night discussion of motions. I was struck by the fact that today he was able to say succinctly in 13 minutes what took him more than an hour to say last night. Similarly, of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) managed to say in 12 minutes what it took the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey 34 minutes to say last night. That demonstrates that we have had sufficient time to deal with the motion fully and properly.

I am pleased to commend the motion to the House. The provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are a direct response to the changed security situation following the tragedy of 11 September. The powers in the Bill, such as those for the detention of suspect terrorist asylum seekers and for aviation security, are needed on the statute book as soon as possible. I believe that we have got the balance right, enabling debate, scrutiny and consideration in both Houses while seeking to secure the Bill according to the Government's timetable. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 152.

Division No. 103] [6.38 pm
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Bell, Stuart
Ainger, Nick Bennett, Andrew
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) Benton, Joe
Allen, Graham Berry, Roger
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald Best, Harold
(Swansea E) Betts, Clive
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Blackman, Liz
Atherton, Ms Candy Blears, Ms Hazel
Atkins, Charlotte Blizzard, Bob
Austin, John Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Bailey, Adrian Borrow, David
Baird, Vera Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Banks, Tony Bradshaw, Ben
Barnes, Harry Brennan, Kevin
Baron Kevin Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Battle, John Browne, Desmond
Bayley, Hugh Bryant, Chris
Beard, Nigel Burden, Richard
Begg, Miss Anne Burnham, Andy
Beggs, Roy Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C bridge) Havard, Dai
Campbell, Gregory (ELond'y) Healey, John
Casale, Roger Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Cawsey, Ian Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Challen, Colin Hendrick, Mark
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hepburn, Stephen
Chaytor, David Heppell, John
Clapham, Michael Hermon, Lady
Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough) Hesford, Stephen
Clark, Dr Lynda Heyes, David
(Edinburgh Pentlands) Hill, Keith
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Hinchliffe, David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hoey, Kate
Clelland, David Hope, Phil
Clwyd, Ann Hopkins, Kelvin
Coaker, Vernon Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Coffey, Ms Ann Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Colman, Tony Howells, Dr Kim
Connarty, Michael Hoyle, Lindsay
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)
Corston, Jean Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cranston, Ross Humble, Mrs Joan
Crausby, David Hurst, Alan
Cruddas, Jon Hutton, Rt Hon John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Iddon, Dr Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Illsley, Eric
Cummings, John Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack Jamieson, David
(Copeland) Jenkins, Brian
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
David, Wayne Joyce, Eric
Davidson, Ian Keeble, Ms Sally
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dawson, Hilton Kemp, Fraser
Dean, Mrs Janet Khabra, Piara S
Denham, Rt Hon John Kidney, David
Dhanda, Parmjit King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Donaldson, Jeffrey M Knight, Jim (S Dorset)
Donohoe, Brian H Kumar, Dr Ashok
Doran, Frank Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dowd, Jim Lammy, David
Drew, David Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Laxton, Bob
Edwards, Huw Lazarowicz, Mark
Efford, Clive Leslie, Christopher
Ellman, Mrs Louise Levitt, Tom
Ennis, Jeff Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Farrelly, Paul Linton, Martin
Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead) Lucas, Ian
Fisher, Mark Luke, Iain
Fitzpatrick, Jim Lyons, John
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna McAvoy, Thomas
Flint, Caroline McCabe, Stephen
Foster, Michael (Worcester) McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) McDonagh, Siobhain
Foulkes, George MacDonald, Calum
Francis, Dr Hywel MacDougall, John
Gardiner, Barry McFall, John
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S) McGuire, Mrs Anne
Gerrard, Neil McIsaac, Shona
Gibson, Dr Ian McKechin, Ann
Gilroy, Linda McKenna, Rosemary
Goggins, Paul McNulty, Tony
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) McWilliam, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hain, Rt Hon Peter Mallaber, Judy
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, David (Midtothian) Mann, John
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) Marris, Rob
Hanson, David Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart) Martlew, Eric
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Sheridan, Jim
Merron, Gillian Shipley, Ms Debra
Michael, Rt Hon Alun Skinner, Dennis
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Miliband, David Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Miller, Andrew Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Moffatt, Laura Soley, Clive
Mole, Chris Southworth, Helen
Moonie, Dr Lewis Spellar, Rt Hon John
Morgan, Julie Squire, Rachel
Morley, Elliot Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mountford, Kali Steinberg, Gerry
Mullin, Chris Stevenson, George
Munn, Ms Meg Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Stinchcombe, Paul
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Stoate, Dr Howard
Naysmith, Dr Doug Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Stringer, Graham
O'Brien, Mike (N Watte) Stuart, Ms Gisela
Olner, Bill Sutcliffe, Gerry
Organ, Diana Tami, Mark
Osbome, Sandra (Ayr) Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)
Picking, Anne Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pickthall, Colin Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pike, Peter Timms, Stephen
Plaskitt, James Tipping, Paddy
Pollard, Kerry Todd, Mark
Pond, Chris Touhig, Don
Pope, Greg Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pound, Stephen Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Primarolo, Dawn Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Purchase, Ken Tynan, Bill
Pumell, James Walley, Ms Joan
Quin, Rt Hon Joyce Ward, Ms Claire
Quinn, Lawrie Watson, Tom
Rammell, Bill Watts, David
Rapson, Syd White, Brian
Reed, Andy (Loughborough) Whitehead, Dr Alan
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Wicks, Malcolm
Robertson, John Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
(Glasgow Anniesland) Winnick, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Woolas, Phil
Ross, Ernie Worthington, Tony
Roy, Frank Wright, David (Telford)
Ruane, Chris Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Wyatt, Derek
Salter, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm Tellers for the Ayes: Angela Smith and Mr. Ian Pearson.
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Barry
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Burnett, John
Allan, Richard Burstow, Paul
Amess, David Burt, Alistair
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Butterfill, John
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Cable, Dr Vincent
Baker, Norman Calton, Mrs Patsy
Barker, Gregory Cameron, David
Baron, John Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Barrett, John (NE Fife)
Bellingham, Henry Carmichael, Alistair
Bercow, John Cash, William
Blunt, Crispin Chidgey, David
Boswell, Tim Chope, Christopher
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia (Rushcliffe)
Brady, Graham Collins, Tim
Brake, Tom Conway, Derek
Brazier, Julian Cotter, Brian
Breed, Colin Curry, Rt Hon David
Brooke, Mrs Annette L Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Murrison, Dr Andrew
Djanogly, Jonathan Oaten, Mark
Doughty, Sue Öpik, Lembit
Evans, Nigel Osbome, George (Tatton)
Ewing, Annabelle Ottaway, Richard
Field, Mark (Cities of London) Paice, James
Flight, Howard Paterson, Owen
Flook, Adrian Price, Adam
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Prisk, Mark
Foster, Don (Bath) Pugh, Dr John
Francois, Mark Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)
Gale, Roger Rendel, David
George, Andrew (St Ives) Robathan, Andrew
Gibb, Nick Robertson, Angus (Moray)
Gidley, Sandra Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gray, James Roe, Mrs Marion
Green, Matthew (Ludlow) Ruffley, David
Greenway, John Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Grieve, Dominic Sanders, Adrian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Sayeed, Jonathan
Hague, Rt Hon William Selous, Andrew
Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W) Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Harvey, Nick Shepherd, Richard
Hayes, John Simmonds, Mark
Heald, Oliver Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Heath, David Spicer, Sir Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Spring, Richard
Hoban, Mark Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas Stunell, Andrew
Holmes, Paul Swayne, Desmond
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Swire, Hugo
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Syms, Robert
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Taylor, John (Solihull)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Jenkin Bernard Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Taylor, Sir Teddy Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles Thurso, John
(Ross Skye & Inverness W) Tonge, Dr Jenny
Key, Robert Trend, Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Kirkwood, Archy Tyler, Paul
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire) Viggers, Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Watkinson, Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Webb, Steve
Lamb, Norman Weir, Michael
Laws, David Whittingdale, John
Leigh, Edward Wiggin, Bill
Letwin, Oliver Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Willis, Phil
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Wilshire, David
Llwyd, Elfyn Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Luff, Peter Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
McIntosh, Miss Anne Young, Rt Hon Sir George
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew Younger-Ross, Richard
Maclean, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Stephen O'Brien and Mr. Charles Hendry.
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)
Moore, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That,

(1) At the sittings on Tuesday 11 th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and

(2) At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.