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

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Housing Bill the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m;

(2) 18 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the Table below and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Mr. Conway, I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how much we are looking forward to debating the Housing Bill under your and Mr. Pike's expert chairmanship. I have not had the pleasure of serving under you in a Standing Committee before, but I have certainly with you on a Select Committee and I know that this Committee can rely on your robust and completely impartial governance of our affairs.

We shall spend substantial time discussing important subjects today and in the sittings ahead.

They are of great interest not only to members of the Committee, but to many outside the Room. Unfortunately, as a result of ministerial commitments, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), cannot be with us today, but she looks forward to working with everyone. I am aware that the Committee contains a great deal of expertise and experience, and I look forward constructive and well considered discussions.

Our debate about the Bill on Second Reading was of particularly high quality. Several hon. Members who have been appointed to the Committee raised many important points covering a wide range of issues. Now, we have the opportunity to debate the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way, which will put all its provisions clearly into context. As colleagues will know, the Bill was published in draft for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government found such an exercise extremely valuable and, thanks to that process, we believe that the Bill is now in better shape.

I remind the Committee that the main purpose of the Housing Bill is to create a fairer, better and more efficient housing market that is designed to protect the most vulnerable in respect of housing. It will fulfil two of the Government's manifesto commitments on licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the introduction of home information packs. It will contain much of the legislation that is needed to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February last year. We believe that the Bill will make a real difference to people on the ground. Colleagues will be well aware of the various parts of the Bill, so I do not intend to explain them in detail.

The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee sets the times and dates for our discussions about the Housing Bill. We propose to meet twice daily on Tuesdays and Thursdays until Tuesday 24 February. It will be a relief to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who feared that we proposed to sit through the February recess and devote seven sittings to debating part 7, that we shall not, of course, be sitting on Tuesday 17 February and Thursday 19 February, which fall during the February recess.

The order of consideration of the Bill broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. I shall be happy to explain that in detail if any member of the Committee is concerned about it. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the clause that introduces them. The provisions in a schedule might relate to a particular clause, and it therefore seems appropriate to consider them together. We also think—and the Programming Sub-Committee agreed—that it is logical to take any new clauses or schedules relating to a particular part of the Bill immediately after consideration of the provisions in that part.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): There is no need to elaborate at length on what the Minister said, but it would be remiss not to

welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. As ever, it will be a delight to serve under your erudite and generous chairmanship as we consider an important measure.

There are a number of implications to the measure, and all Committee members—as evidenced by the quality of the debate on Second Reading, to which the Minister referred—share a determination to ensure that this important legislation is as effective and fair as possible. Over the next few weeks, as we are locked not in combat but in healthy scrutiny of the Bill, we will seek to do just that.

I have nothing further to say about the specific nature of the programme motion, or about the progress that we will all endeavour to ensure is made, except to note that as we progress a number of matters that are not in the Bill will doubtless emerge; they will be brought to the Committee's attention in the form of new clauses. As hon. Members will remember, that issue was raised on Second Reading and it was felt by some that aspects of the Bill touched on other matters that perhaps should have been included, but are not. I hope that we will have ample opportunity under your stewardship, Mr. Conway, and that of Mr. Pike, to explore those issues as we progress and as they relate to particular aspects of the Bill, on the basis suggested in the Programming Sub-Committee. No doubt, such new clauses will be tabled in due course and we can enjoy a broad, efficient and effective debate on them, albeit one that is constrained by the proper consideration of such matters.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I recall serving under your chairmanship on various Finance Bills and you know how joyous it is to serve on the Standing Committee on a Finance Bill when the Government are keen to agree to Opposition amendments. Hopefully, the Government will continue to be keen to consider what the Opposition have to say about this Bill, particularly given that during many of the discussions prior to this sitting there was an air of constructive criticism and a willingness to see whether we could improve the legislation.

Many of us agree with much of the Bill. The Minister will be aware that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have concerns about part 5, but that that aside, there is a lot of common ground and a willingness to ensure that the Bill is implemented effectively and that the right balance is struck. Also, the draft Bill procedure has shown the Government's ability to listen to the Select Committee and the people who gave evidence to it, and to improve legislation before it reaches Standing Committee. That means that there is greater agreement with, and understanding of, the Government's intentions.

I put on record our thanks to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his briefing. I understand that he extended the same courtesy to Conservative Front Benchers. The chance to talk to him and to civil servants in the initial stages improved our understanding of the Government's position. I think

that these proceedings will be constructive, not least because of the way in which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) goes about his work as a Whip.

There will probably be a lot of passion in the Committee, not least during this morning's sittings, because week in, week out in our advice surgeries housing is the one issue that people raise that we sometimes feel unable to deal with. That is especially true of London Members, but those with constituencies outside the capital probably encounter the same thing. We feel frustrated about legislative constraints and we want more action to be taken. The Bill will, I hope, enable progress to be made. People will be pleased about that, but they will also want to persuade the Government about issues such as overcrowding, as we will hear later today.

The programme motion was improved by the Programming Sub-Committee, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for his suggestion that we start a little later. I think that the 9.10 am start came as a result of that, which pleases one who commutes from Surbiton every day on South West Trains. The Minister for Housing and Planning rightly pointed out that I was under a misapprehension about the recess. I was volunteering to come in, possibly by myself, for extra sittings on part 7. I am pleased to say that my diary has already been rearranged.

I am glad that the motion allows for a lot of debate on new clauses. It emerged on Second Reading, and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and understanding increases, that the Government may find that there is room to add new elements that strengthen the Bill and that ensure higher standards in the private rented sector and in the housing stock overall. So I welcome the motion, Mr. Conway, and I look forward to constructive procedures.

Mr. Conway, I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how much we are looking forward to debating the Housing Bill under your and Mr. Pike's expert chairmanship. I have not had the pleasure of serving under you in a Standing Committee before, but I have certainly with you on a Select Committee and I know that this Committee can rely on your robust and completely impartial governance of our affairs.

We shall spend substantial time discussing important subjects today and in the sittings ahead.

They are of great interest not only to members of the Committee, but to many outside the Room. Unfortunately, as a result of ministerial commitments, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), cannot be with us today, but she looks forward to working with everyone. I am aware that the Committee contains a great deal of expertise and experience, and I look forward constructive and well considered discussions.

Our debate about the Bill on Second Reading was of particularly high quality. Several hon. Members who have been appointed to the Committee raised many important points covering a wide range of issues. Now, we have the opportunity to debate the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way, which will put all its provisions clearly into context. As colleagues will know, the Bill was published in draft for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government found such an exercise extremely valuable and, thanks to that process, we believe that the Bill is now in better shape.

I remind the Committee that the main purpose of the Housing Bill is to create a fairer, better and more efficient housing market that is designed to protect the most vulnerable in respect of housing. It will fulfil two of the Government's manifesto commitments on licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the introduction of home information packs. It will contain much of the legislation that is needed to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February last year. We believe that the Bill will make a real difference to people on the ground. Colleagues will be well aware of the various parts of the Bill, so I do not intend to explain them in detail.

The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee sets the times and dates for our discussions about the Housing Bill. We propose to meet twice daily on Tuesdays and Thursdays until Tuesday 24 February. It will be a relief to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who feared that we proposed to sit through the February recess and devote seven sittings to debating part 7, that we shall not, of course, be sitting on Tuesday 17 February and Thursday 19 February, which fall during the February recess.

The order of consideration of the Bill broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. I shall be happy to explain that in detail if any member of the Committee is concerned about it. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the clause that introduces them. The provisions in a schedule might relate to a particular clause, and it therefore seems appropriate to consider them together. We also think—and the Programming Sub-Committee agreed—that it is logical to take any new clauses or schedules relating to a particular part of the Bill immediately after consideration of the provisions in that part.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

There is no need to elaborate at length on what the Minister said, but it would be remiss not to

welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. As ever, it will be a delight to serve under your erudite and generous chairmanship as we consider an important measure.

There are a number of implications to the measure, and all Committee members—as evidenced by the quality of the debate on Second Reading, to which the Minister referred—share a determination to ensure that this important legislation is as effective and fair as possible. Over the next few weeks, as we are locked not in combat but in healthy scrutiny of the Bill, we will seek to do just that.

I have nothing further to say about the specific nature of the programme motion, or about the progress that we will all endeavour to ensure is made, except to note that as we progress a number of matters that are not in the Bill will doubtless emerge; they will be brought to the Committee's attention in the form of new clauses. As hon. Members will remember, that issue was raised on Second Reading and it was felt by some that aspects of the Bill touched on other matters that perhaps should have been included, but are not. I hope that we will have ample opportunity under your stewardship, Mr. Conway, and that of Mr. Pike, to explore those issues as we progress and as they relate to particular aspects of the Bill, on the basis suggested in the Programming Sub-Committee. No doubt, such new clauses will be tabled in due course and we can enjoy a broad, efficient and effective debate on them, albeit one that is constrained by the proper consideration of such matters.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I recall serving under your chairmanship on various Finance Bills and you know how joyous it is to serve on the Standing Committee on a Finance Bill when the Government are keen to agree to Opposition amendments. Hopefully, the Government will continue to be keen to consider what the Opposition have to say about this Bill, particularly given that during many of the discussions prior to this sitting there was an air of constructive criticism and a willingness to see whether we could improve the legislation.

Many of us agree with much of the Bill. The Minister will be aware that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have concerns about part 5, but that that aside, there is a lot of common ground and a willingness to ensure that the Bill is implemented effectively and that the right balance is struck. Also, the draft Bill procedure has shown the Government's ability to listen to the Select Committee and the people who gave evidence to it, and to improve legislation before it reaches Standing Committee. That means that there is greater agreement with, and understanding of, the Government's intentions.

I put on record our thanks to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his briefing. I understand that he extended the same courtesy to Conservative Front Benchers. The chance to talk to him and to civil servants in the initial stages improved our understanding of the Government's position. I think

that these proceedings will be constructive, not least because of the way in which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) goes about his work as a Whip.

There will probably be a lot of passion in the Committee, not least during this morning's sittings, because week in, week out in our advice surgeries housing is the one issue that people raise that we sometimes feel unable to deal with. That is especially true of London Members, but those with constituencies outside the capital probably encounter the same thing. We feel frustrated about legislative constraints and we want more action to be taken. The Bill will, I hope, enable progress to be made. People will be pleased about that, but they will also want to persuade the Government about issues such as overcrowding, as we will hear later today.

The programme motion was improved by the Programming Sub-Committee, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for his suggestion that we start a little later. I think that the 9.10 am start came as a result of that, which pleases one who commutes from Surbiton every day on South West Trains. The Minister for Housing and Planning rightly pointed out that I was under a misapprehension about the recess. I was volunteering to come in, possibly by myself, for extra sittings on part 7. I am pleased to say that my diary has already been rearranged.

I am glad that the motion allows for a lot of debate on new clauses. It emerged on Second Reading, and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and understanding increases, that the Government may find that there is room to add new elements that strengthen the Bill and that ensure higher standards in the private rented sector and in the housing stock overall. So I welcome the motion, Mr. Conway, and I look forward to constructive procedures.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I start by declaring an interest: I am the director of a family property company. I hope that Committee members will bear that in mind.

We have 18 sittings, which will allow adequate time to deal with the important issues in the Bill. I look forward to dealing with the Minister for Housing and Planning, who, like me, is a veteran of various transport Bills. He has been generous with the information—so generous that it is difficult to read it all. I hope that further information is made available when it is required. That would be helpful to genuine and sensible debate. We all want to get this legislation right.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Mr. Conway, I join other hon. Members in welcoming you and Mr. Pike as Chairmen of the Committee. This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship. I fear that it will not be the last.

By any account, the Bill is comprehensive, complex and crucial. It is worth recalling that this massive Bill consists of 204 clauses, which cover 141 pages, and 11 schedules, which cover 56 pages. It comes in seven parts, and although every part is important, five are of

major importance. I will not extend exaggeration by saying that those five parts should be five separate Bills. However, part 1, which deals with housing conditions, has the following chapter headings: ''Housing standards'', ''Hazard awareness notices'' and so on, ''Demolition orders and clearance areas'' and ''Enforcement action''. Each is important.

The heading of part 2 is ''The licensing of houses in multiple occupation'', which is crucial. In part 3, there is ''Selective licensing of other residential accommodation''. Skipping part 4, part 5 has ''Home information packs'', a radically new concept that will affect every residence in our country. Part 6 chapter headings include ''Secure tenancies'', which involves changes to the right to buy; that could be controversial and important.

We need plenty of time to consider such matters. It would be wrong to guess how long we will need. Perhaps matters that we did not think would come to the fore will do so during our debates. For how long will the Committee be able to meet if necessary? There are 18 sittings over nine days. I came here at five to 9—I thought that we started then; I now realise that we are to meet at 10 past 9. So, if we finish at 11.25 am, the Committee will sit for two and a quarter hours in the morning, instead of two and a half hours. So be it—I am not complaining about a quarter hour. However, when can we finish in the evenings?

We have to deal with clauses 1 to 16 by 11.25 am on Thursday 22 January. Our consideration of the next group of clauses, beginning with clause 44, will have to conclude by 6.55 pm on Tuesday 27 January. Presumably, we are to adjourn at 6.55 pm on that day because there may be a Division at 7 o'clock downstairs, but can we come back after the 7 o'clock vote, and is the time that we can sit until open-ended?

The programme motion states:

''during proceedings on the Housing Bill the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays''.

So if the House rises at half-past 7 because of the Adjournment debate that traditionally follows the main business, may we sit until half-past 7, or whenever the Adjournment debate ends? May we sit even beyond that time, if we have the agreement of the Whips? I do not know, and it would be extremely helpful to find out, not only because unforeseen issues may surface, but because Opposition Members can plan better if we know until precisely what time we can sit on each day.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Does he think that, if the House rises, it might interfere with our proceedings?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

There are two points. First, I genuinely do not know whether we can continue to sit after the House has adjourned. If we cannot, can we sit until it adjourns—that is, during the half hour or so of the Adjournment debate? I have quite forgotten my second point; I shall try to think of it. What I really want to stress is that it would be helpful to have clear guidance on when we can sit, so that we can plan our deliberations accordingly.

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con) rose—

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Before I call Mr. Selous, it might be helpful to Sir Sydney and the Committee if I covered a couple of the technical points that Sir Sydney so reasonably raises. The time of the sittings of the House is set by motion of the House, so it is not at the disposal of the Chairman or the Committee to vary that provision, unless the House changes the terms of the motion and the date on which we have to conclude. What time we finish consideration in Committee within the time scale set by the House is a matter for the Committee. Although the timings are set out in the amendment paper, the motion to adjourn would still have to be moved by a Government Whip.

If the Committee, by the mysterious means of which we know, decided that it wished to go on sitting for a longer period, the motion to adjourn would have be moved at a later time. In other words, it is possible for the Committee to vote and resume sitting, if that is its wish. The start time is not in the gift of the Committee, but the Adjournment time still is.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am most grateful for that; it is extremely helpful. I have one remaining point and if I raise it now, it will save considerable time. Let us consider, for example, the grouping of

''Clauses 66 to 85 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3'',

which has to be concluded by 5.55 pm on Thursday 29 January. Does that mean that, on conclusion of deliberation on those clauses, we can move immediately that same evening to clauses 86 to 105, or is it anticipated that the Committee will be adjourned when, or if, there is a Division at 5.55 pm? It would be helpful to know that, too.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

As I understand it—and I will be guided by the excellent Clerk if I am giving the Committee the wrong steer—it would indeed be possible to move on to the next group if that was the wish of the Committee. It might also help the Committee if I point out that although the Tuesday afternoon sitting appears to be quite long, I am sure that both Peter Pike and I have it in mind to have a tea and comfort break during the long haul.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests: I derive some rental income from a property in London.

I shall respond briefly to the remarks that the Minister for Housing and Planning made about the sustainable communities plan. He will have heard my comments on the issue on Second Reading. My constituency is right in the heart of one of the sustainable communities plan areas. His colleague Lord Rooker, the former Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, will visit my constituency next Tuesday. I shall be with him—with my Front Benchers' permission, of course—as he assesses the impact of the plan on my locality.

My local housing authority, South Bedfordshire district council, already had in place substantial plans to meet the housing needs of the residents of my

constituency. The sustainable communities plan for South Bedfordshire proposes to double the number of houses in my constituency—an area that is already extremely congested and one where local employment is nowhere near sufficient to meet the needs of the local population—

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that I am sure that he will remind the Committee that he is making these points in the context of the programme motion. He may feel that he needs more time to consider them, but his contribution must relate to the timing we are discussing.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. I am certainly guided by that. I just responded briefly, in the light of the programming motion that we are discussing, to the comments that the Minister made earlier.

Mr. Conway, on an administrative matter, might we have your permission to remove our jackets while we are here? I should also like to point out that my name has been misspelled on the list of members of the Committee available in the Room. I would like that to be corrected.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

We will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's name is spelled correctly. I have no objection to hon. Members removing their jackets or other garments, within reason.

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

I had noticed that the name of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) had been rendered as ''Sealous'', which reflects the general approach to which we have become accustomed in his brief but distinguished membership of this House. I can assure him that on his visit to Bedfordshire next week, Lord Rooker will take a positive, constructive approach to local issues.

I am grateful for what have been, on the whole, positive observations from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) expressed concern about a possible lack of time in the Committee. I do not believe that sentiment is universally shared by members of the Committee, but let me reassure him, as you said yourself, Mr. Conway, that the Government intend to be flexible: we will take as much time as we need. The hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) were members of what I began to describe as the ''Planning Bill repertory company''. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will remember that in the course of our proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, in response to complaints about time from the Opposition, I engaged in a rhetorical flourish in which I said: ''Well, we will go on till midnight if that is what is required.'' Unfortunately, I was taken at my word, so I intend to make no such commitments along those lines in this Committee.

We have tried to balance the timetabling of the Committee in the light of the complexity and contentiousness of its contents. We have allowed

extra time, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings pointed out, if required for additional concerns. I hope that reflects the transparent, relatively open-minded and constructive approach that Ministers intend to bring to the Committee.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I rise to correct an omission. I made the comment that the Minister mentioned, but I did not thank him for the time that he spent with members of this Committee in advance of its meeting to ensure that we were well briefed on these complex, as he describes them—some might say byzantine—matters. His help has been well received by all. I hope that it signals the way in which we will proceed during our consideration of the Bill. I just wanted to put that on the record, as I had not done so in my opening remarks. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Housing Bill the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m;

(2) 18 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the Table below and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.