§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. We propose 141 a more convenient order in which to take the Bill through Committee, subject to the Bill receiving a Second Reading from your Lordships' House.
Moved, That, in the event of the Bill being read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:
- Clause 1,
- Schedule 1,
- Clauses 2 and 3,
- Schedule 2,
- Clauses 4 to 6,
- Schedule 3,
- Clauses 7 to 17,
- Schedule 4,
- Clauses 18 to 20,
- Clauses 37 to 43,
- Clauses 21 to 36,
- Clauses 110 to 120,
- Clauses 44 to 59,
- Schedule 5,
- Clauses 60 to 71,
- Schedule 6,
- Clauses 72 to 101,
- Schedule 7,
- Clauses 102 to 109,
- Clauses 121 and 122,
- Schedule 8,
- Clauses 123 to 126.—(Lord Rooker.)
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have so quickly become disenchanted with the order of clauses that they themselves laid down only a week ago? I shall give only two examples; there are more. Clauses 37 and six others are proposed to be taken after Clause 20; Clause 110 and 10 others are proposed to be taken after Clause 36.
Also—there may be a simple answer to this—the Motion refers to Clause 126. No such clause occurs in my copy of the Bill.
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, it is not unusual for a Bill to be taken in a different order in Committee. The Bill available in the Public Bill Office—I was going to say the Vote Office—this morning, which is the Bill we will debate in this House, contains 126 clauses, as listed in the contents. It is true that Clause 126 appears on its own on the page listing the schedules; it is the Short Title. The Bill grew slightly in the other place because of the addition of the sunset clause.
I know that this may get up the nose of a few of your Lordships—although it is not intended to do so—but it is not unusual to consider a Bill in a different order from that in which it is printed, and the order has been agreed by both Front Benches and the usual channels. I am happy to read out an English translation of the Motion that I moved, giving the subject areas of the Bill in the order in which we will take them, if that is required.
142 The main reason for the order is to allow for the convenience of all parties, including the Opposition. It is the Government's Bill, and we will defend it. Nevertheless, there are key issues that various quarters of the House wish to debate, and it is important that they have as much time as possible and as is needed to do so. Sometimes, to do that, it is better to take the Bill in a slightly different order from that in which it is printed.
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, perhaps before the noble Lord sits down he could take two points. First, the rearrangement does not make navigation through a complicated Bill any easier for newcomers. Secondly—and I hesitate to put the point too clearly—not everyone who does not sit on Front Benches is necessarily enchanted by decisions reached through the usual channels.
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I have been where the noble Lord is now and I know exactly how he feels. I am still learning the procedures of the House and getting used to speakers' lists takes quite a while. If it is convenient to the House, I will arrange for an explanation by the broad subject to be placed in the office. The subject headings are terrorist property; freezing orders; disclosure of information; race and religion; immigration and asylum, which is detention; miscellaneous, which is a JHA matter and is most important; Terrorism Act 2000; weapons of mass destruction; security of pathogens and toxins, which is the laboratories; security of the nuclear industry; aviation security; police powers; retention of communications data; and bribery and corruption.
I shall arrange for that list to be split so that people can see which subjects are intended to be taken on each of the four days in Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.