I shall be delighted to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. You always challenge me in this regard, do you not? You think that saying that the motion is restrictive will somehow constrain my remarks. I think you will find that it does not work quite like that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was about to probe further in my analysis. In the one hour that I have identified between the programme motion and Division and the Third Reading debate, we have two matters of substance to consider: a new clause that is of some importance and an amendment, which is similarly important. Let us say, arbitrarily, that we allot half an hour to each. That means that the Government are seriously suggesting that in a mere half hour we as the House of Commons, with an obligation to our voters to scrutinise legislation, are expected at one and the same time to listen to the proposer of the new clause or the amendment, to hear Back-Bench contributions from the eminent lawyers here gathered on both sides of the House, and to hear the ministerial response. In one half hour—30 minutes—we as the House of Commons are expected to do justice to our responsibility to scrutinise legislation properly.
Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1552 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:37:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294780
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294780
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294780