Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
9:10 am
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.