Crime and Security Bill (Ways and Means)

What a meal the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has made of the Ways and Means motion. Having said that, however, I should like to make a couple of brief procedural points. Let me say first that the motion is before us because—yet again—substantial new parts of the Bill were introduced in Committee. Given that this is one of the criminal justice Bills with which we deal every year, it was to be hoped that Ministers would think a little about what they wanted to be in it before publishing it. The motion is before us because they did not, and they have now decided to add a couple of provisions. I do not know the merits of the provisions. I suspect that they are a very good idea—I should certainly like to see proper control of clampers and proper compensation for overseas victims of terrorism—but they should have been in the Bill from the start. My second procedural point concerns the timing of the motion. The matters involved are still before the Committee, which has yet to report to the House. It is always helpful for the House to be aware of what has been determined in Committee, and, before Report, to deal with the appropriate Ways and Means motion in order to authorise expenditure that is at present entirely hypothetical, because it is based on consideration in Committee of matters that the House as a whole has not yet had an opportunity to discuss. A Ways and Means motion is not the occasion on which to judge the merits of proposals such as this, far less to ask for details of the operation of a scheme. A Committee stage is the occasion on which that should be done, and the Report stage—if we reach it—will provide an opportunity for Members to have their say and for Ministers to explain the consequences of their proposals. As you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very narrow motion whose purpose is to authorise payments if, and only if, the proposals are found to be satisfactory on Report, pass through another place and receive Royal Assent. There is a scrutiny process and we do need to examine the details, but this is not the right time to do that. I have my doubts about the procedure as currently constituted. I do not think that even the limited consideration that we can give the proposals during the debate makes this an appropriate time to examine them.