§ Queen's recommendation having been signified—
§
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
- (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
- (a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and
- (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;
- (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Beverley Hughes.]
§ Question agreed to.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe now come to motion No 4.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would be good enough to confirm first that the vote on this motion will be a deferred vote, and secondly that, when the deferred voting procedure was debated on the Floor of the House, it was made very clear that no deferred votes would apply to anything that could be regarded as controversial legislation.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of the arguments advanced on this particular measure—which many will regard as extremely controversial—if the procedure applies, the measure will be voted on not tonight, once the debate has taken place, but later. I understand that various members of the Government have said that it would be unfortunate if the procedure did not apply, because that would be seen as ascribing unnecessary importance to the order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will indicate whether you think the deferred voting procedure suitable for what is plainly an important decision.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. That has enabled me to check what the Modernisation Committee said about deferred Divisions when it recommended them. It listed various types of business in the case of which it would be 123 possible and sensible to defer Divisions after 10 pm. They included motions to approve statutory instruments, and this is a motion to approve a statutory instrument.
§ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have now voted on Second Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Last week, unusually, the House agreed that amendments to that legislation could be tabled before Second Reading, for debate in Committee on Wednesday. Hon. Members tabled amendments yesterday, and they—including some Liberal Democrat Members—have tabled more today. So that the maximum number of hon. Members on both sides of the House can contribute to that debate, would you and the Chairman of Ways and Means consider not excluding from debate on Wednesday amendments that are tabled tomorrow?
Finally, and linked to the above point, until hon. Members have heard the next debate, on the order, they obviously cannot table amendments to the legislation on the basis of the issues that arise in that debate. It may not be possible or practical for hon. Members to table those amendments until tomorrow, and I hope that they will be given the opportunity to do so.
§ Mr. SpeakerThose matters are the responsibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record, and I have no doubt that the Chairman of Ways and Means will take note of his comments.
§ Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it on record that Conservative Members, too, hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will attend to the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes.