Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Before we return to new clause 49, may I raise the subject of timetabling? Although I am grateful to the Government Whip for accommodating me by agreeing to end the previous sitting slightly early—by 10 minutes—the Committee would nevertheless have had to adjourn at about half-past 6 because Committee business is always subservient to what is going on in the House. As a result, we did not have the opportunity to put in extra time on Tuesday, yet here we are, on the last day of the Committee's proceedings, timetabled to finish at 5.15 pm.

I have just quickly counted up, and we still have three new clauses to dispose of, and 89 clauses and six schedules still to debate. That is in respect of a Bill that was originally 90 clauses long, and had six schedules. We do not know how many new clauses there will be to deal with at the end of the day, but it would be an absolute outrage and an abuse of parliamentary democracy, having unprecedentedly recommitted the Bill to a Standing Committee, if this second Standing Committee still does not have time to consider vast chunks of the Bill. Those outside who watch our proceedings will be absolutely baffled by the Government's timetabling of Committees.

I warned the Government when the order to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee was made in June that eight sittings would not be enough, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said the same at least once during business questions. At our first sitting, I pleaded with the Government, saying that eight sittings was not enough. After all, if 12 sittings was not enough for the original Bill, it should have been clear that eight would not be enough for this Standing Committee to consider a Bill with a huge extra amount added to it.

I was given an undertaking by the previous Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), that we would have enough time not only to deal with the new stuff that the Government rightly wanted to include and the Bill itself, but to allow other members of the Committee to add to our debate. Indeed, they have added hugely to our debate by raising other important planning matters—even if the Government are not going to accede in respect of them, it has been most useful to have had such a debate.

I ask whether you, Mr. Pike, have been given any indication by Government business managers that they intend to come forward at any time today to suggest adjourning for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet. My hon. Friend the Member for

Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), the silent one who works through the usual channels, and I would be more than willing, as I am sure would the Liberal Democrats, to consider adjourning at any time for that purpose. We could put in a day or two extra next week—we would be perfectly flexible and willing to do that—or even remove the 5.15 pm barrier and put in a few extra hours this evening.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his case at sufficient length.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although I recognise the slightly ritualistic nature of such protestations. I remind you and the Committee that the parts of the Bill that are still to be debated were subject to extensive—indeed, intensive—debate in our earlier sittings.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise another point of order while we are dealing with the first.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Part 1 of the Bill, which was the major area of contention for the Opposition, was subject to detailed analysis during those earlier sittings. I also remind the Committee that, by agreement, we introduced the Opposition's new clauses as well as our own so that they could be properly debated. No knives whatever have been imposed in our proceedings. We have always made it absolutely clear to the Opposition that we are open to representations at any stage to add time by deliberating further into the evening and by convening on a Wednesday.

I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are perfectly content to debate the Bill until midnight tonight, if the Opposition so desire it. I remind the Committee, however, that careful analysis of the timetable shows that we have spent a mere 28 per cent. of the Committee's time on the Government's new clauses, which means that 72 per cent. has been spent discussing the Opposition's new clauses and amendments. In my view, the Opposition have had ample scope to make their recommendations, although we are open, through the usual channels, to accommodating any negotiations that might occur this morning.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I appreciate that the first part of the Bill might have been considered in detail in the previous Committee, but the remaining parts have not. I accept that new clauses tabled by Opposition Members have been debated, but a huge number of amendments have been tabled to other parts of the Bill, so I am especially pleased to hear the Minister accept that we might go on until midnight. If that is a genuine offer, it would be wise for us to consider adjourning so that the Programming Sub-Committee may meet.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Members on this side of the Committee have made their point powerfully. I refute what the Minister

says. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) pointed out, parts 1 and 2 may have been discussed at some length in the previous Committee, but vast chunks of this Bill were not. We have not yet discussed very important matters such as simplified planning zones, major infrastructure projects, statements of development principles, the duration of consents or twin-tracking, all of which are greatly exercising practitioners. Those practitioners will be completely baffled if the Committee does not discuss those issues.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am happy to accept that the Programming Sub-Committee should sit now, and I will happily participate if the Committee wants to go on until midnight. A much better way of conducting our business would be for the Programming Sub-Committee to sit and to add an extra day to our proceedings whenever convenient, which could be as early as next week.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

There are several points of order, to which I will respond with care. I was Chairman of the original Committee and I am well aware of all the points that have been made. The Modernisation Committee has been considering how programming has been working, and has examined those Committees where it has worked well and those where it might be judged not to have worked well. I shall not pass comment on the category into which this Committee might fall. As Chairman of the original Committee, I was able to bring the Programming Sub-Committee up to date at yesterday's meeting.

The Modernisation Committee's report will, I hope, be finalised next week and will be debated before the Sessional Orders are debated, which will probably be in the first week of November, before the next Session. I hope that that helps Members on the general issue of programming. The House will express its view on that report, which may not conform with what the Committee agrees or with what the Leader of the House proposes for Sessional Orders.

On the question that I was asked at the start of today's sitting, I have been told that there will be a move to hold a sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee at some point this morning, but that it will be about the order of proceedings, which could change in the interim. I do not know what sensible discussion outside this Room might come up with. If the Government Whip comes to me with a proposal regarding a sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee, I will accept such a motion. However, it will be more appropriate to discuss that when we reach that stage, rather than continuing hypothetically. I do not know yet what will be put to me. Does that help the Committee?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Pike, for that helpful explanation. I am grateful, and I am sorry that we had to spend a little time on that matter. However, it is important.