HL Deb 05 December 2001 vol 629 cc837-8

3.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may first give a one-minute "English translation" of it. There is a note in the Printed Paper Office setting out the areas of the Bill involved for tomorrow's debate. This is merely a suggestion. The list is as follows: disclosure of information; police powers, retention of communications data; immigration and asylum; and terrorist property and freezing orders. The suggested list for Monday is: the Justice and Home Affairs Council, race and religion, and the remaining parts of the Bill as set out on the Order Paper. I commend the Motion to the House.

Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

  • Clause 17,
  • Schedule 4,
  • Clauses 18 to 20,
  • Clauses 90 to 102,
  • Schedule 7,
  • Clauses 103 to 107,
  • Clauses 21 to 36,
  • Clause 1,
  • Schedule 1,
  • Clauses 2 and 3,
  • Schedule 2,
  • Clauses 4 to 6,
  • Schedule 3,
  • Clauses 7 to 16,
  • Clauses 111 to 121,
  • Clauses 37 to 59,
  • Schedule 5
    • 838
  • Clauses 60 to 71,
  • Schedule 6,
  • Clauses 72 to 89,
  • Clauses 108 to 110,
  • Clauses 122 and 123,
  • Schedule 8,
  • Clauses 124 to 127.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, the noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, has tried to give some justification for the appalling confusion as regards the consideration of the Bill on Report which taking the clauses and schedules in the order in which they are listed on the Order Paper will create.

Clause 17 comes first, followed by Schedule 4 and then Clauses 18 to 20; then Clauses 90 to 102. Not until we have dealt with still more clauses, up to Clause 107, shall we begin debating Clause 1. I have often seen these confusing sequences, but I have never seen a more confusing one than this. Why has this Motion been placed before the House?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the short answer is that it is thought by the opposition parties that it is for the convenience of the House to take first on both days the key issues that they want to debate. Clearly, Clause 1 is not one of them. Therefore, it is wholly sensible to make this arrangement. It is certainly consistent with normal parliamentary procedures to debate the big issues in the early part of both days. It makes sense to split them between the two days, so that we do not spend the whole of the first day on the big issues, with nothing to debate on the second day. It is a much more sensible arrangement than to debate the issues in the order in which they appear in the Bill.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I agree with the Minister's comments. He was right to say that the list was drawn up at the request of myself, my colleagues and also the Liberal Democrats. Debate on the second day is likely to begin at Clause 111.

Lord Renton

My Lords, if I may say so, there ought to be greater and wider consultation on the matter than simply a conspiracy between the two Front Benches.

On Question, Motion agreed to.