Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that this debate is largely a ritual, but it is useful to examine the facts. At the start of the process, quite properly, the usual channels asked for two days on Report, rather than just one—they asked for and were given that, because of the importance of the matters covered by the Bill. Within that, they asked that one day be given over—I think that this is unique; I cannot remember a similar occasion in my 10 or 11 years in the House—for a full day's debate on one clause. Tomorrow's debate is on clause 22 only, and that is proper, given its importance. For today's debate, the Opposition asked for and were given a knife at 6.30—again, that was quite proper, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned, because of the importance of the points about the coroner's inquest and other matters. All those requests were met in the interests of debate. Let us roll back a little further, as I take the general point about Back Benchers having their chance on Second Reading and on Report, and subsequently on Third Reading, if we reach that stage tomorrow. On Back-Bench input in Committee, the Opposition gently asked for eight sittings and were given 14. Whatever hon. Gentlemen say about junior Back Benchers, that is and has always been the core time for Back Benchers to scrutinise matters in greater detail, as for everyone in the House.