---

Business of the House

May I express my surprise that a decision has apparently been taken on September sittings without the House being properly consulted? However, I will leave it at that for the moment. Will the Leader of the House review our consideration of the Terrorism Bill over the past few weeks? I ask him to do so not for the obvious reasons, but because even though, in anybody's book, this is a very serious matter on which there are firmly held opinions in all parts of the House, a significant number of clauses and amendments were never considered, whether in Committee or on Report. The Bill will pass to another place without those views having been expressed in this elected House. 10 Nov 2005 : Column 473 Just a few moments ago, the other place commenced a debate, led by Lord May—as the Leader of the House knows, he is president of the Royal Society—on climate change. Lord May will express the opinion that this country is going to fail to meet its Kyoto targets, which is a matter of importance to us all. Can this House have a similar debate? What has happened to cross-cutting questions? Is that an experiment that has failed? We certainly seem not to have had any for a long time. Are we to have any ever again? Lastly, should we ever have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster again, could he—or she—come to the House to account for the regulatory impact unit, which I believe is within his bailiwick? As was pointed out in consideration of a Bill on Monday, the accompanying explanatory notes contain the following extraordinary statement: "The Regulatory Impact Unit has confirmed that no Regulatory Impact Assessment is required." Is that really what the RIU is for—to tell us that we do not need to know what it might know, in case we form a view on it?