Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Before we begin, I have two announcements. Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish. Under my chairmanship, that is blanket consent for the duration of the Committee. If Mr. Stevenson has a different view, he will no doubt express it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has telephoned me to say that he cannot be with us for the first hour this morning as he is speaking in Westminster Hall.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Homes Bill, the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at a quarter to Ten o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock.

(2) 12 sittings shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Standing Committee;

(3) the proceedings on the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 15, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part I, Clauses 16 to 29, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 30 to 34, remaining new Clauses and new Schedules;

(4) the proceedings on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at the 12th sitting at Five o'clock.

I begin by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I am pleased that you will be chairing our proceedings. Last year, I had the privilege of taking a larger Bill through a Committee under your chairmanship, and Committee members on both sides—some relics of that experience are with us today—agreed that although some of the Bill was controversial, the Committee's proceedings were conducted in a constructive, courteous and amicable way, which owed much to your wise chairmanship. I look forward to seeing the same qualities in our forthcoming sittings.

The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee sets out the times and dates for our discussions. It is proposed that we meet twice on Tuesdays and Thursdays for a total of 12 sittings. I believe that that time will be more than adequate to allow proper scrutiny of the Bill's 34 clauses and three schedules. Two years ago, I was responsible for the Greater London Authority Bill. Although it was almost 10 times the length of this Bill, it had just two and a half times the number of sittings. That comparison shows that the usual channels have, in their discussions, made every effort to ensure that we have more than adequate time to consider all the provisions that need scrutiny.

I believe that the time is sufficient to allow for adequate discussion of amendments and of new clauses, which the resolution proposes should be taken at the end of the discussion of each part of the Bill. With the exception of the final sitting on 1 February, we are not proposing an end time to either Tuesday or Thursday proceedings. The proposed order of consideration is a straightforward means of allowing our proceedings to be orderly and thorough. I hope that it finds favour with the Committee.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that the debate is limited to half an hour. I also remind hon. Members, as I asked the usual channels to tell them earlier, that we will be sitting this afternoon, which is unusual on the first day of a Committee. Any hon. Members who have other plans may wish to make alternative arrangements.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I do not think that you are a relic, Mr. Gale, but I also welcome you to the Chair. I am sure that our proceedings will be good natured, and that we will be able to disagree without being disagreeable. This debate is the third bite of this particular cherry. We debated the programme resolution after the Second Reading debate, and I endorse the comments and criticisms that I made there. Last night, there was a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, and here we are again for half an hour this morning.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he believes that the time allowed is adequate to deal with the Bill, the amendments that we know about, the amendments that we do not yet know about, new clauses and Government amendments. How can he be sure? That is the basic criticism of any attempt to give a definite end date to our consideration.

It is not remotely relevant for the Minister to cite the number of clauses. There are 34 clauses and three schedules, but some are complex and worthy of considerable debate. The Maastricht ratification Bill had only a couple of clauses, and that took up a lot of time, as hon. Members will remember.

We hear much from the Government about open government but the opposite of that is happening in the House of Commons. There is a policy of suppressing debate as far as possible, which renders the House an irrelevance in the Chamber and in Committee.

It is important to remember the history. The original proposal for programming debate—or guillotining, to give its proper description—predated Second Reading, let alone any amendments tabled since. The proposal from the usual channels has always been the same: six days and 12 sittings. That has not altered since the beginning of the so-called programming process. There has been no real flexibility. It is rather like Henry Ford saying that people can have any colour they like as long as it is black. It seems that we can have any period that we like as long as it is six days and 12 sittings.

Yesterday evening, under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, I had the pleasure and privilege of sitting for the first time on a Programming Sub-Committee, which is the new constitutional device that the Government have introduced to deal with such matters. No record is kept of its proceedings, it is closed to the public and other hon. Members are barred from participating in its debates. In effect, it is held in secret. At that meeting, a decision was made to programme the Standing Committee along the lines of the resolution.

At the Programming Sub-Committee—a new Government device to guillotine the discussion of legislation—the Minister let slip that the Liberal Democrats had agreed to Government proposals to limit discussion of part I, which deals with seller's packs, to three sitting days. As my comments will be the only record that the public will get on the proceedings, I note that the Liberal Democrats voted with the Government to limit the entire Standing Committee duration to six days.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he had exactly the same discussions on the issue with the Government Whip as I did, and that he agreed to the same proposals as I did on behalf of the Liberal Democrats?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment and I am afraid that it is only just beginning. I cannot confirm whether we had the same discussions through the usual channels because I do not know what discussions they had. I would have thought that it was blindingly obvious that he reached a secret deal with the Government business managers and we did not.

Not only did the Liberals Democrats cook up that secret deal—[Interruption.]

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Stop digging.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is the one who is in a hole, and a deep one. Given that there is no record of last night's proceedings, a fact that we would probably all agree is unfortunate, the task falls to me to explain to the rest of the Committee and to the general public what has been going on.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I shall clarify what went on. The discussions in which I might, or might not, have been involved were held under duress and I opposed the Government's procedure for timetabling the Committee in this way. However, the Liberal Democrats, acting under their Lib-Lab pact, were only too keen to acquiesce.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

There we have it: a rare shaft of light on the deliberations of the usual channels. As someone cleverer than me once said, Whips are as important to Parliament as sewers are to civilisation.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Sometimes the Whips say that about their own Front Bench.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Let us not allow this seasonal hilarity to detract from the fact that the proposals were made on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and whereas we declined to accept them, the Liberal Democrats signed up with their customary alacrity. Perhaps the Minister slipped up when he revealed what he did last night, but he has revealed it. Is it not typical of the Liberal Democrats to do a secret deal with the Government to limit debate on this crucial part of the Bill?

Millions of people will be affected by the proposals to change the rules on house purchase, and they deserve a proper and wide-ranging debate. This latest example of Lib-Labbery will deny them that. I strongly wish to place on record the role of the Liberal Democrats in denying it to them, and my comments are the only way in which to do that.

Mr. Gale, I know that you said last night that you would deal with this point but, as it is pointless to go over the past any more, I want to consider the future and especially the issue of flexibility. Our plea is simple. How can the Government claim to be taking due account of the democratic process when they are putting the cart before the horse, by deciding before Second Reading, and even before they have seen any new amendments or clauses, precisely how long the Committee stage should take? That period has not altered one iota since proceedings on the Bill began.

We plead only for some flexibility. Whether that would amount to an extra day or two days we cannot yet say, for a number of good reasons. For instance, new issues might arise, such as the serious concern that was expressed by Labour Back Benchers about the effect of the seller's pack in low-demand, low-value areas. That important issue dominated part of the Second Reading debate, and we shall return to it frequently.

There is also the prospect of more amendments, new clauses and new schedules: some have already been tabled, and no doubt others will be. Unless they are to be dealt with in an unseemly flurry at the end of our proceedings, it is difficult to see how they can all be debated properly.

I have already commented on Government amendments, and I think that the Minister and I are ad idem about the matter. Every Bill involves consequential and drafting amendments that are tabled by the Government, and we have no difficulty about that. Most of them will probably go through on the nod. However, we are concerned about the habit, which has developed during the current Parliament in particular, of large rafts of Government amendments appearing late in Committee or during later stages that make substantive changes to legislation.

It is perhaps churlish of me to complain about that now, because we hope that on some of the big, highly technical and complex issues, the Government will see the sense of making changes. For example, on enforcement, alternatives to the criminal sanctions that they are pursuing might be proposed. We would welcome such Government amendments, or at least a detailed indication of amendments that they might table at a later stage. We cannot make advance provision for such amendments. So far, the Government have tabled only the programme resolution. Again, I put down a marker about that.

We are pleased that there are to be no time limits on sittings on given days but, in my experience and possibly in yours, Mr. Gale, merely sitting longer in the evening does not necessarily speed matters up. The option of sitting on other days between now and 1 February has been left open. We may have to reconvene a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee if progress on the Bill slips behind that which the Government's business managers had in mind.

Taking those considerations into account, we need a further indication of potential flexibility from the Minister. You have expressed a desire to put other related matters on the record, Mr. Gale, because of the slightly unsatisfactory fact that Programming Sub-Committee proceedings are not public. That is all we want. We will do our best to meet the timetable, but issues will arise. Just this morning, I had a flurry of new briefings from a variety of organisations that are intimately involved with part I. Even doing the best we can, I cannot see how we can commit to finishing part I in three sitting days. The Liberal Democrats may believe that that does not matter, because they are concerned more with part II. We are concerned with part II as well, but wish to see the whole Bill subject to proper scrutiny and debate in Committee and thereafter.

Hon. Members will agree that part I contains far more technical and legal complexities than part II. We want to go through part I carefully, as it will affect an average of 1.5 million transactions a year. Millions of people will be affected when dealing with the most important financial transaction that they will ever have to carry out: the purchase or sale of the family home.

It is a great shame that the Government are being so cavalier about the time that we have to debate the Bill, particularly part I. It is also unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats are happy to go along with the time limit for part I. We are determined to see that the points are debated properly with or without their co-operation, because we are, of course, the true party of opposition—[Interruption.] I leave out any opposition from Government members to some parts of the Bill. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to vote against the programme resolution.

Mr. Don Foster rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. Before I allow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) his riposte, it might be helpful if I place some matters on record. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) indicated, I had intended to make a statement at the end of this short debate. As certain matters have been raised, it is appropriate to do it now. If necessary, I propose to add the injury time that I take now on to the end of the debate, so that nobody should feel short-changed.

At the Programming Sub-Committee last night, certain decisions were made and votes, which are a matter of record, were taken. I should make it plain that Mr. Speaker has ruled that Programming Sub-Committees are to be treated as Select Committees sitting in private. When Select Committees sit in public and take evidence, their hearings are recorded verbatim. When they sit in private, no such record is taken. Mr. Speaker made that ruling and it is not for me or for members of the Committee to challenge it. However, if hon. Members have a different view, they are entitled to make their points to the Modernisation Committee, and through the Committee, to the whole House. It may be that, as the new ways of working become clearer, the House may wish to take an alternative view.

I believe that decisions taken should be minuted. Committee members who were not present last night do not have access to how decisions were taken. That is unsatisfactory, and it is why I am intervening now. I indicated to the Sub-Committee last night—the Chairman of Ways and Means having told me that which has already been made plain by both Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen—that while the final sitting day is time-limited to 5 o'clock, no other sittings are so limited. Hence, so far as the Chair is concerned, there is flexibility within the sitting days.

I have expressed through the usual channels my willingness to serve the Committee for as long as is necessary. I cannot commit my co-Chairman, but I am certain that Mr. Stevenson will take a similar view, given the guidance of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

I also told the Programming Sub-Committee last night, and now make it clear to all Committee members, that I shall reconvene the Sub-Committee if I deem it necessary in the light of amendments and new clauses tabled either by the Opposition or by the Government. I believe that that offer has the broad consent of all hon. Members.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship on this Committee, Mr. Gale. As I have said before, your chairmanship is both fair and firm and you always extend enormous courtesy to hon. Members, with a great deal of good humour. You have even been known—occasionally—to smile at one or two of my remarks. I was therefore interested by the way that you smiled at the Minister's reference to me as a relic. I should like to remind you that the Minister and I are not alone; we have with us another relic, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I am greatly looking forward his contributions to the Committee, as I suspect that their style will be very different from that which we can expect from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, judging by his opening remarks.

I am also delighted to be joined today by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). As his wife was due to give birth to their second child yesterday, I hope that the Committee will understand if my hon. Friend is not at our next sitting; I am sure that his absence will be brief, as he believes that this is an important Bill.

Given the comments made about Liberal Democrats by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, anyone who reads the Official Report of today's proceedings will be forgiven for believing that there is an election in the air. You will not be misled, Mr. Gale, because your many years of experience will tell you that such comments are made regularly, whether or not an election is imminent. The hon. Member for Eastbourne began by saying how much he looked forward to the Committee's debates, in which he hoped for a great deal of good will. I am delighted to join him in hoping that that is the case, but am surprised at the way in which he has gone about attempting to ensure as much.

As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Gale, many Committee members were not involved in our deliberations in the Sub-Committee last night. I should therefore like to place on record the observation that I made then, that—as it was the first time that many of us had sat on such a Committee, there having been very few such Sub-Committees in the many hundreds of years of our Parliament—we were fortunate to be there and to witness some firsts. One of them was a real first: the first-ever filibuster in a Programming Sub-Committee, by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Therefore, I was pleased when he said today—it still took him 13 minutes—that he would not repeat all those remarks, although he did endorse them. I am delighted that he has not changed his mind between yesterday and today. His comments were reminiscent of those of former American Vice-President Dan Quayle, who said, ``I agree with all the mis-statements that I have made''.

We had an opportunity in the Programming Sub-Committee to discuss whether we have sufficient time to debate all the important issues before us. I made it clear then that I believe that our current procedures are wrong, in that we expect the House to decide the end date of a Committee on the same day as the Second Reading debate. It seems odd that we have to make such a rapid decision, because it is only during that debate that we are able to determine the range of issues and concerns. It would be better to have a gap between the Second Reading debate and the programme resolution.

However, an end date has been set. The Government have presented us with an inordinately flexible way of approaching the legislation. We can sit for as long as we want, and we are grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for agreeing to continue in the Chair for all hours of the night should it prove necessary. However, I hope that that will not be the case.

In the Programming Sub-Committee, I supported a motion tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne that we should have the flexibility to go on to midnight on the last day of the Committee, should that prove necessary. Sadly, that motion was defeated but, with that exception, the programme resolution before us is very flexible.

Finally, although much has been made of the informal discussions among all the parties concerned, whether under duress or not, we have agreed on a sensible way of allocating our time up to the finish date. Although it is not part of the programme resolution and is not binding, I urge all Committee members to uphold that informal agreement. Only by doing that can we ensure that all parts of the Bill receive reasonable consideration.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am pleased to have literally three minutes in which to put on record some of the issues that I raised on a point of order in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday. I would like to make it clear that the main Opposition party wholly deprecates this timetable procedure. I was involved in discussions on the timetabling of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which was far more complex than this Bill. The debate lasted six weeks, and the out day was exactly that which was originally agreed informally at the beginning of the Committee. Such sledgehammer guillotine procedures are totally unnecessary.

I raised seven points last night regarding the Programming Sub-Committee. First, although I do not wish to challenge the Speaker's ruling, as time goes on it will increasingly seem a good idea to make the Sub-Committee's proceedings public. In this age of enlightenment, with the Government's Freedom of Information legislation, there is no good reason why those deliberations should not be made public because there is nothing secret or sensitive about them. The United States' House of Representatives Committee on Rules sits in public.

Secondly, if the Sub-Committee's proceedings are not to be in public, all Members of Parliament should at least be allowed to attend, particularly those who will sit on the Standing Committee. After all, they will be most affected by its decisions.

Thirdly, there should be a verbatim note of the Sub-Committee's procedures, as important matters will be decided there. Courtesy of the usual channels, to whom I am grateful, the programme resolution is relatively flexible. However, the Government have it in their power to make such resolutions far more complex, with individual clauses having to be finished at a particular sitting. I have no doubt that when that happens discussions will be held about what precisely has been agreed by the Sub-Committee, so it seems sensible that a verbatim note should be taken of its proceedings.

Fourthly, if a verbatim note is not taken, some way should be found to make each Sub-Committee's rulings public, not least because those rulings will form a precedent for future Sub-Committee proceedings. I hope that that will be considered.

Fifthly, the resolution should be made available at least one day before the programming sub-Committee meets. It is a matter of courtesy to the members of that Committee; it also means that proper consideration can be given to the resolution and that amendments can be tabled in an orderly and timely manner.

Sixthly, we need some general guidance on the circumstances under which you, Mr. Gale, would consider recalling the programming Sub-Committee. If the Opposition make a request through the usual channels, I believe that we should normally expect the Sub-Committee to be recalled. After all, the Government may table substantial new clauses and a large number of amendments, as has happened with Bills in previous Sessions. Indeed, some Bills were almost rewritten by the Government because they were so badly drafted, and a third of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill was not considered by Committee in the House of Commons but only by the other place. In such circumstances, the Opposition would ask for the Programming Sub-Committee to be recalled.

Finally, we should have some idea of when and how the Sub-Committee might ask the House for an extension of the Committee's end date. I realise that the Government would be exceedingly reluctant to do that, because it would involve another 45-minute debate on the Floor of the House. But we are Members of Parliament, and it is our duty and our job to discuss measures brought to the House by the Executive, and to debate whether they should be amended for the good of the people. If we cannot do that as a result of measures tabled by this overbearing Government, then Parliament is being set aside and the wishes of the British people are thereby being disregarded.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Before we proceed, one observation arises out of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He asked under what circumstances I would consider reconvening the Programming Sub-Committee. Such representations—from both sides, and made through the usual channels—will be considered courteously and a decision will be reached. I am happy to tell the Committee that those decisions will be final and may not be debated.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Coventry North East, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I ask you to check the result of the Division?

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I announced that the Ayes were nine and the Noes were four. However, on checking, it seems that the Ayes were 10. The Clerks' Department is on its way to the Tower of London.

I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice must be given of amendments. As a general rule, which pretty much means always, my co-chairman and I will not call starred amendments.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. At this stage, I will make my habitual intervention. On a sunny day, when the Minister sits in that position, his face dissolves into a blur. That may have advantages, but it makes it difficult to hold a sensible conversation. The alternatives are to bring down the blinds, which would be ridiculous when there is precious little sunshine around, or for the Minister to move one seat along, which would not remove him irremediably from the succour of his civil servants and would help us all. [Interruption.] I am grateful that my tangible suggestion has been adopted.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not strictly a point of order for me, but the Minister has complied. Clause 1 Meaning of ``residential property''and other expressions