Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

House of Commons, 3 February 2005.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Programme Order of 7th December 2004 relating to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill be varied as follows—

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

3. The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings

New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to Clause 122 and Schedule 10; new Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to blasphemy. | One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings. | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities. | Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the status and powers of staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. | Four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to behaviour in vicinity of Parliament Square; remaining proceedings on consideration. | Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.—[Fiona Mactaggart.]

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

I am astonished by the brevity with which the Minister has started this important debate. Our debates on programme motions often have the qualities of a choreographed Greek chorus, with outrage expressed by the Opposition about the nature of the motion and the Government saying that their predecessors behaved in precisely the same way, but I submit that today's motion is an outrageous abuse by the Executive of their programming powers. I shall explain why I think so and invite colleagues on both sides of the House to vote against the motion.

The Bill, whose Report stage is next Monday, was described by the Government during the debates on the Gracious Speech as a "flagship Bill" and Ministers have made it clear that they attach the greatest possible importance to the legislation. The Minister will confirm that the Opposition have behaved in a classically responsible manner when discussing the Bill on the Floor of the House. On Second Reading we set out those aspects that we supported and those about which we had reservations. Furthermore, no programme motion was required in Committee: we agreed with the Government through the usual channels that eight sittings would be acceptable, although we would have liked more. We said that, in so far as it was within the power of Her Majesty's Opposition to report the Bill at 7 o'clock on the appropriate evening, we would do so, and the Bill was reported within 90 seconds of that time. Almost all the key clauses were discussed, and the Opposition's approach was at all times constructive.

We asked for two days on Report precisely to prevent what is now about to happen on Monday. The first knife in the proposed motion will fall one and a half hours after the debate starts on the provisions dealing with religious hatred. Those provisions might be acceptable to the House, and with good will on both sides we might be able conclude our discussions on that topic within the allotted time.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I shall be interested to hear why my hon. Friend believes that an hour and a half would be remotely sufficient to discuss a subject as important as religious hatred, given that all hon. Members, I am sure, have received anguished letters from constituents on the subject and Report provides the only opportunity for those who did not have the privilege of being members of the Standing Committee to debate such matters. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his comment, albeit that it was an attempt at generosity on his part?

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

Despite the fact that what he says is true, I invite my right hon. Friend to listen to my comments on all the other aspects of the programme motion and to consider, in the spirit of the good will that the Opposition are trying to engender, whether one and a half hours to debate religious hatred might be sufficient.

The second topic of discussion is intercepts. It is dealt with in a new clause, which has attracted support from hon. Members of all parties. Although it was discussed only briefly in Committee, it is a key provision that abuts on a subject of great concern across the House—those people who are currently locked up in jail and are outside the criminal justice system. An authoritative argument has been made that the use of intercept evidence in court could enable those people to be brought back within the criminal justice system. Acres of print have been published on the subject and it has been discussed on every television channel. It relates to the question of house arrest, and to our liberties, yet under the programme motion we shall be able to discuss it for only half an hour. It will take me almost all that time to move and explain the new clause that stands in my name. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has tabled a perfectly reasonable amendment to the programme motion, succeeds in persuading the House to accept it, the House will have absolutely no time at all—zero minutes—to discuss the important question of intercepts.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

To clarify the argument that my hon. Friend is making so powerfully and convincingly, let me say that we anticipate at least two votes when the first knife falls, and that they will probably take half an hour.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even if the amendment to the motion is not accepted, the maximum time available to us will be half an hour.

The topic has not been debated on the Floor of the House. It has been the subject of heavyweight reports by Lord Lloyd and Lord Newton. The report of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, including senior Privy Councillors from both sides of the House, made it clear that intercept evidence should be discussed and preferably agreed upon by Parliament.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am perplexed. Can my hon. Friend think of any reason why the Government want such a tight programme, and why we should not be able to discuss such an important issue of liberty for a little longer?

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the issue. It has been widely discussed outside the House, but we are not to have time to discuss it in the House.

The next subject of the knife is our debate on animal rights terrorism—a matter of great importance on which my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) has produced much good work. During our constructive debates in Committee, he won some concessions from the Government, as did the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I have just come from an on-the-record meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is considering aspects of the Bill, and I understand that some matters have not yet been decided. Our approach has been constructive, but the Government are proposing to allow only half an hour if there are two votes after the preceding debate.

The next group of provisions relates to the Opposition's concerns about the nature of a constable. Under the Bill, regardless of their training, every officer of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, whose creation we support, could have the powers of a constable—that is, powers of arrest. This is a serious matter of principle, and again, of liberty, because it changes the nature of police powers to which this country has adhered for more than 400 years. If the Government want to make that change, they have the right to do so—if they can win a vote in the House—but to allow only a half-hour debate on it is wrong.

The final knife before Third Reading falls on the debate on behaviour in the vicinity of Parliament square, which is another important aspect of the freedom to protest. As I said, I have come from a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was extremely helpful on the Committee. I pay credit to the hon. Lady. She is still considering whether a change should be brought before the House on Monday on the way in which the issue of Parliament square is handled. This is a matter of concern across the House. There are divisions in all parties on the subject, and it needs to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Nothing has yet been tabled by the Government. Even now the Minister is still considering what the Government should table on this important matter, to be discussed on Monday.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend may not know that today I tabled some modest amendments to that part of the Bill, partly because I think the Bill could do with improvement, and because considerable discussion is merited on an issue of the greatest importance not just to the House, but to all citizens. Notwithstanding what the Government may or may not do to their own Bill, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that my amendments will deserve substantial debate.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

I have indeed read my right hon. Friend's amendment, which reduces the cordon sanitaire from 1 kilometre to 200 metres—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yards!

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

—to 200 yards. It is an interesting amendment, and I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Government are considering it. They are taking a responsible attitude and trying to work their way through the problem. However, it is outrageous that the Executive should come to the legislature and tell us that we can have only half an hour to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House—along with all the other issues, on which we are being allowed only half an hour.

That is ridiculous. It is a Government abuse because they have a large majority and can win votes. They should not be able to stifle debate. This place works on the basis that we have a right to be heard. If the House can spend 700 hours discussing foxes, surely we can have two days on Report and Third Reading on the Government's flagship Bill. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) looks back at the record—I speak as a former senior Government Whip—she will see that no Tory or previous Labour Government ever behaved in such a draconian way by curtailing discussion as the motion does. The motion is an insult to every hon. Member, and to those who send us here and pay us to represent them. Above all, it makes a mockery of scrutinising legislation.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I beg to move amendment (a),

In the Table, in the entry relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings, in column 2, leave out from 'Two' to 'New' in column 1 in the entry relating to protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities, and insert—

' | hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

Amendments relating to the abolition of the Royal Parks Constabulary | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.'

I tabled amendments yesterday that were in order and tabled within the appropriate time for them to be considered for selection. I accept that when the Government drafted the programme motion and published it this morning, they were unable to take into account the amendments that I tabled.

My amendment seeks to find half an hour in a hectic programme to discuss what I consider to be an important issue. I was not privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee. The Committee considered the transfer of the Royal Parks constabulary to the Metropolitan police, but it did not address the individual rights of members of staff who are to be transferred. If we in the House have any role, our prime role is to protect the rights of the individual, whether they be constituents or others.

The Royal Parks police consists of 141 officers, of whom 42 are members of a trade union, the PCS. Those members of staff, who have served loyally in the royal parks and were commended in Committee for their work, will lose their right to be members of a trade union when they are transferred to the Metropolitan police. They will also lose the value of their pension—estimated at about a 30 per cent. loss. There was no debate about that in Committee, because I do not believe that many hon. Members understood the implications.

I can find no opportunity for debate on Monday, except in the last section of the programme, when many other issues will be debated. As the relevant clause is clause 144, it is unlikely to be reached. We are breaching the fundamental human rights of the individuals in question. When we discussed GCHQ and the protection of the right to become a trade unionist, the Government were clearly committed to those human rights. The measure will also affect the future standard of living of those members of staff, and that warrants a debate. For that reason, I have suggested that we give a small amount of time—half an hour—one third of the way into the programme so that we can deal with the matter.

If we cannot amend the programme motion in that way today, I urge the Minister to take the matter back to her colleagues. It has not been addressed, and I urge her to give sympathetic consideration to the amendments that I tabled and make a statement on Monday about how the Government propose to address this important matter.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The amendment illustrates how chaotic the programme motion is. It is still possible to table amendments today, and the Government's programme motion does not take into account the issues that Back Benchers may want to raise. The problem with the amendment is the priorities that the Government have set and the time that they have allocated. The business in the first one and a half hour debate is highly likely to provoke two votes, which will take almost half an hour. Accepting the amendment means that we would have no debate on intercept evidence, which is extremely important. That is frustrating and worrying.

The Procedure Committee presented a report that aimed to improve the way programming works, and to provide encouragement through the usual channels to produce a consensual programme that would fit most of the business in. Sadly, on the advice of the Government, the House rejected the report. As a fall-back from the Procedure Committee's proposals, the Government would have to use the guillotine process. The report was an attempt to force the Government to recognise the need to build an understanding throughout the House of what should be in the programme. Having rejected that, the Government have become addicted to managing the business for their own convenience, not for the effective scrutiny of legislation nor for effective debate.

The programme motion does not allow enough time for adequate scrutiny of fundamental matters such as intercept evidence and the whole new area of vital legislation on animal rights extremists and the effect of their activities on people's legitimate right to carry out their business. The future of Parliament square is bound to be controversial, so all the remaining topics will receive no consideration. The Government have failed to protect the business so that Back Benchers have an effective and adequate input. Yet again the Government are passing the buck to the other place to scrutinise the legislation. I urge them to recognise the error of their ways, withdraw the programme motion, acknowledge the need for more time on Report and Third Reading, and come back with a far more thought-out proposal.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) has spoken modestly and moderately, just as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) moved his moderate amendment in a modest and moderate way.

The Minister has perpetrated an outrage today. She had the brass nerve to stand at the Dispatch Box and move the programme motion formally—she did not explain for one minute why the Government are doing this. We are seeing evidence of an elective dictatorship. That is exceptionally serious. Programming is bad enough. It is happening with every Bill, and it is happening without proper and adequate consultation—but this is a programme too far. In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) went through the parts of the Bill showing how they directly and indirectly touch the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. There is almost no one in this country who will not be affected in one way or another by the implications of this Bill.

I support many parts of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield made that clear. My Front-Bench colleagues have some objections to the Bill that I do not share, and I shall explain why. On some parts of the Bill, I am more on the side of the Government than of the Opposition. They are only small points, but they exist.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What's new?

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

My right hon. Friend asks, "What's new?"—and I do try to bring an independent mind to most things. But the fact of the matter is that the Government are ignoring Parliament, sidelining it and treating it with derision. We were all sent here to play a part in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising legislation that is put before us. It is a duty that we cannot perform if this programme motion is voted through. It will be impossible to debate adequately any of the subjects that the Bill touches upon.

Probably a couple of hours—certainly an hour and a half—will be taken up by Divisions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, half an hour may be spent on intercepts. If the modest amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which I should like to support, were made, there would be no time at all.

There was a time when someone came into the Chamber, or its predecessor, pointed to the Mace and said, "Take away that bauble," and Parliament was suspended. The Government have introduced plenty of stealth taxes, and they are now attacking by stealth the very integrity of Parliament, with a series of motions that emasculate it. That should be a matter of supreme importance to every Member, whatever his or her views and whatever constituency he or she represents. We cannot do our job if motions such as this are passed.

Most people in this House will accept that I try to behave as a House of Commons man: I seek consensus where it can be found. I hope that I am independent-minded on most subjects. But if the Government persist in this way, the official Opposition would be entirely justified in withdrawing all support, in leaving the Modernisation Committee and saying: "We will have no part of this and we will not do anything that can be construed in any way as conferring legitimacy on an operation that is designed to obliterate the proper function of Parliament."

This is a sad and serious moment. It is a programme motion too far, and I hope that the Minister, who has not yet uttered a word, will take it away, and then return and give us two days. That is modest enough for a measure of such far-reaching importance, but we could then work together again in a consensual spirit, ensuring that as far as possible—we accept that the timetable is truncated because an election is looming—we discuss, at least briefly, every aspect of this far-reaching Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What is so symptomatic about the charade in which we are now engaged is that, first, the Minister—all too typically, I am sad to say—did not see fit to explain to the House why the Government saw fit to truncate our deliberations in this vicious and draconian way. This now routine guillotining of our proceedings sums up all too well the narrow relationship between the Government and the House of Commons. As has been eloquently explained on both sides of the House, we are faced yet again with a major piece of legislation containing serious and controversial matters that we shall not have proper time to debate.

Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) was over-generous to the Government. He was as angry as the rest of us, but said that, for example, a one and a half hour debate on religious hatred might be enough. The matter has caused great concern to people up and down our land, and rightly so, and deserves prolonged and serious considered debate in this House. Yet the Government announce peremptorily in the programme motion, "No, you will have only a limited amount of time on this because we, the Government, see it that way." That eloquently states the narrow relationship between the Government and the House.

I have done a quick count of amendments, but further new clauses and amendments may be tabled today, so it is by no means complete. The Order Paper lists 17 new clauses—some were tabled by the Secretary of State, so the Government are still amending their own Bill—and some 133 amendments, of which 70 were tabled by the Government, on subjects such as intimidation of persons, animal research organisations, the power to seize, interception, which my hon. Friend mentioned, religious hatred, and restrictions in Parliament square.

In the good old days when there was a proper relationship between the Government and the House, that last matter alone might have taken a day's debate. We are talking about the possible restriction of the ability of our citizens freely to demonstrate in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament. That is a very serious matter, and one on which I am sure that we all have a view, because it touches on the fundamental rights of our citizens. Yet the Government have apparently dismissed it as worthy of little discussion or deliberation.

I tabled a couple of amendments, because the Bill requires deliberation and improvement. If the draconian guillotine is swept through today by the Government with their huge majority—sadly, we are used to that—I doubt whether I shall have an opportunity to bring the matter to the House. That is just one relatively small example. It is a sad, sad day when we are left in this position, whereby the Minister, secure with her huge Government majority, knows that she can come here and not even do the House the courtesy of explaining what the guillotine is about, and assumes that it will go through with little protest.

That is all well and good, but I hope that some day people will wake up to what has happened to this Parliament, and to this House in this Parliament. We are effectively handing over our responsibility, as the House of Commons, for the proper scrutiny of legislation—ironically, to the unelected House of Lords. It does a wonderful job of scrutinising legislation properly: it works more days and longer hours than we do, it has more serious debates, and it is not subject to draconian Government timetables. I wish that I were a member of the House of Lords.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that this is a sad day. Just as he thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) was too generous, I think that he was too generous. This is not a sad day; it is a shameful day. Indeed, I suggest that it is a shameless day because we are being led to the parliamentary slaughterhouse by an amoral Government.

This Government, with a majority of 165, ought to have the confidence to present their ideas to this House so that they can be tested. We all know where the votes will come from. We all know that people will leave their offices, switch off the television and come here to troop through the Aye Lobby in favour of the Government. But at least they might do us and, more importantly, our constituents, the courtesy of allowing us to test their ideas through argument. Some of those ideas need to be tested to destruction. Some need to be tested so that they can be improved; my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) mentioned one or two that he is concerned about. Some, if the Government condescended to explain them to us, might receive all-party support, as perhaps they did during earlier stages of the Bill. But at no stage should any Government come to this Chamber and simply assume that we as representatives of the people of this country should simply buckle up, sit down and say, "Oh masters, please tread all over us."

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

One extremely good example of what my hon. and learned Friend is saying is the issue that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire—Parliament square, in which respect even now the Minister is refining the Government's proposals. She is actually doing a good job in trying to reach consensus on this difficult issue, but if she returns to the House and wants to win its support, she will not be able to do so because there will not be enough time for her to take account of opinion, listen to what is said and explain her proposals.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It gets worse. No doubt at some stage some Minister will stand up and say that the matter was fully canvassed in Committee. We all know what happens in Standing Committees nowadays. There are knives, the Government majority are compliant and silent, and Opposition Members are prohibited by the time scheduling from expanding the points of view that many members of the public wish to hear debated and considered. It is no good the Government saying that the matter was adequately discussed in Committee.

Furthermore, we all know that Standing Committees are a limited representation of the House of Commons. Those of us who are not on the Bill Committee want an opportunity on behalf of either our constituents or a wider interest group to express our concerns or perhaps our support on issues, such as the curtailment of freedom to do with the law on religious hatred. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I share the same view of the law on religious hatred. We think that it is a bad idea and that the public should hear the arguments from Members other than those on the Committee.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said a moment ago, intercept evidence along with the question of religious hatred are two of the most important issues concerning civil liberties that the Bill will destroy. What are we supposed to do with half an hour to discuss the civil liberties of our citizens? Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in 1998 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, "Hallelujah, this is the Labour Government that is bringing human rights home."? The Government were going to domesticate the European convention on human rights by enacting the Human Rights Bill. What a load of codswallop. What a load of trash. They do not know what they are doing. They have no understanding of the constitutional proprieties. This is a disgraceful and despotic Government. The rulers of the Soviet Union would tip their hat to this lot. The Bill should be given proper consideration by this House, and I hope that it will reject this revolting timetabling motion.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am aware that the Minister is keen to respond even in the limited time we have to discuss the limited time that we have to discuss the Bill on Report. I have a few brief points.

At the start it was not entirely satisfactory that the Bill was such a portmanteau business incorporating different sorts of legislation, but it is recognised that we have to do what we can in Committee. The Committee was disciplined. In my view there is no reason why a Committee cannot get through such a Bill if Members show restraint, as was shown on all sides, but on the basis that each part, which will inevitably be considered separately on Report, will be given adequate time for discussion. It is unfortunate that the programme motion does not provide for that.

In addition, the animal extremism measure is a dramatic piece of legislation. The construction of the five Government new clauses that make up the economic sabotage measure shows that careful discussion and scrutiny is necessary. I question whether there is enough time to do that. Today, I tabled an amendment, the measure having been published only in the last two days, and it is not clear whether there is enough time for consideration. Moreover, the Government could have introduced the new clauses before the conclusion of the Committee stage for us to discuss then, rather than waiting until a few days before a Report stage debate to do so.

Finally, there is the question of the section on religious incitement. Two new clauses, if selected, will need debate and may well lead to Divisions. New clause 3 substitutes a different approach from the Government's and it has three-party support. That means that we are dealing not just with the Government and one or two Front-Bench spokesmen, but with Government Back Benchers who will want their say as they have signed the new clause. It is unusual to have that sort of arrangement on Report on a Government Bill, particularly so close to an election. That should signal that there is plenty to debate.

In addition, there is a new clause dealing with the abolition of blasphemy. That has hardly ever been debated in the House and the last time was, I think, 15 years ago. It, too, has cross-party Back-Bench support and Members will want to give their view. I understand that Conservative Members will have a free vote, so no doubt there will be more than one view held among them. Certainly there will be more than one view on the Government Benches. I do not see how it will be possible to cover that discussion in an hour and a half.

I urge the Government, who so far have dealt with the business of the Bill in a spirit of co-operation despite the tight scheduling, to reconsider the programme motion to provide adequate time for all those matters. If the Government do not, they know that they will have difficulty in the House of Lords on the question of religious incitement. The failure to debate this properly in this House gives encouragement, rightly so, to the other place to stand firm in their previously expressed belief that this is not what they want to see. Fuller discussion in this House might persuade some of their lordships to drop their objections. The Government are making a rod for their own back by trying to rush that particular measure and this Bill through the House.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The reason why I moved the programme motion formally rather than exercising all the arguments in favour of its construction was precisely to give Members on all sides an opportunity to state their concerns. This debate is limited. The Government deliberately tabled the debate for today to guarantee that it should not in any way eat into the opportunities for debate on the measures themselves. We guarantee that even if there is a statement, we will get the full amount of time set out in this programme motion.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

The Minister said that the Government held the debate today so that they could listen to what was said. She has heard from across the House blanket condemnation of the motion. Will she now withdraw it?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

No, I will not. I am using the opportunity to clarify the reasons for what we have done and to ensure that all hon. Members are confident that there will be the full time for debate, as set out in the motion.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) implied that debate in Committee had been restricted. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) serves on the Committee and knows that no knives were used. Indeed, the Government offered additional evening sittings, so the Bill has been fully debated in Committee. Those who have participated in those sittings have acknowledged that in their contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who moved the amendment, was not a member of the Committee. I accept that his genuine concerns were not dealt with in Committee, which considered such matters relatively briskly, but they could well be dealt with at a meeting with my ministerial colleagues. I hope that we can offer him that opportunity and that he will withdraw his amendment. It is easy to do that because, as hon. Members on all sides have said, during the Bill's consideration my colleagues and I have had extensive meetings with Members and others who have had concerns about aspects of the Bill. We have tried to listen to them. Changes have been made, which hon. Members have graciously acknowledged.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Minister is making a point about trying to deal with some of the individual concerns, but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised his concerns on the Floor of the House for the rest of the House to be aware that there was a problem in the Bill. She is now proposing to deal with those concerns at a private meeting. Will the response from that be put in the Library or before the House so that hon. Members can see it? It is important that there is a record in Hansard for the courts to see how Ministers have justified their legislation. Hansard provides the record of which arguments they used to justify their case.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

As I understand it, the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington are not necessarily with the proposal in the Bill, but with the impact of the proposal on people who are current employees. It is appropriate for such a matter to be dealt with in this way. I hope that my offer of a meeting will deal with his concerns.

I am struck that hon. Members, while raising concerns about the amount of time available for debate, have felt that the programme motion focuses on the right five key issues. After all, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) described the measure as a Bill of 220 pages with which he agreed with all but two. We therefore sought in the programme motion to focus on the provisions on animal rights extremists, the status of staff in the Serious Organised Crime Agency, protests in Parliament square, incitement and intercept as evidence.

Hon. Members have raised concerns about the use of intercept as evidence and the risk that the time taken for voting might mean a relatively short time for debating intercept. The matter was not included in the original Bill but introduced through Opposition amendments. During our proceedings, the Opposition specifically asked for a Home Office response, which has been provided and deals with many of the concerns that were raised.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Under-Secretary says that the Opposition raised intercept and that she believes that it has been tackled adequately. If the mathematics and anticipation of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) are correct, we will have about half an hour to discuss it on the Floor of the House. That is where legislation should be debated. It may well be that the usual channels have held all sorts of interesting discussions and that Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers have proposed ideas but the Floor of the House, not private meetings or secret, back-door deals, is where public legislation should be dealt with publicly. Does not the Under-Secretary understand the purpose of the constitution and Parliament?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

Of course I do. I was highlighting the fact that the issue was raised during the Bill's development and that it did not initially form part of the measure. The Government are eager to respond to concerns that were raised during the process of considering the Bill.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The simple fact is that the Government have included the issue in the Bill. Many of us would say, "Good. Well done", but we want to discuss it. Half an hour for hon. Members of all parties—cannot the Under-Secretary understand that the timetable is far too restricted? Cannot she take away the motion and give us a second day?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I do not believe that that is necessary, because the Committee that considered the Bill managed fully to debate all the issues without any guillotine or knives. The Committee went through all the business. The Government offered additional time in Committee, which was not necessary. We have fully debated the Bill in Committee.

The programme motion focuses on appropriate matters. It is clear from today's contributions that hon. Members are confident that the motion identifies the aspects that they wish to debate on the Floor of the House. Consequently, I am confident that the focus is appropriate. As has been said, the Bill has in large measure attracted support across the House. It has been vigorously debated and there will be a full five and a half hours debate on Report. I emphasise that the time allowed will not be reduced in the event of a statement.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Will the Under-Secretary at least introduce a motion so that the Divisions are not taken into account? We will not get five and a half hours of debate.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I will not and I hope that hon. Members will do their best to ensure that they vote promptly—[Interruption.] By doing that, they can help to achieve—[Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The House must come to order.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I hope that hon. Members will vote swiftly to ensure that we get adequate time for the debate.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Our constituents often want to know which way we voted on controversial matters. The programme motion suggests that we should not vote on them because that means we cannot debate them.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The hon. Gentleman is utterly mistaken if he believes that I implied that. I did not. I urged hon. Members not to linger in the Division Lobby. Some hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate know that they have been responsible for doing that on some occasions.

There is broad cross-party support for much of the Bill. As a result of the Government amendments that are tabled for Report, to which hon. Members have referred, I hope and expect that disagreement will continue to reduce. I am therefore confident that one day for Report is adequate.

I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to withdraw the amendment. Carving out a dedicated slot for the matter that he wishes to debate on Report would mean competing with the important issues that other hon. Members have raised. I believe that his anxieties, which I know to be genuine, can be properly tackled in a meeting with the Minister. I therefore hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.