John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I should like to remind right hon. and hon. Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 12th December) meet—

(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 12th December;

(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th December;

(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th December.

I am sure that we will enjoy a useful and interesting debate under your able chairmanship, Mr. Bercow, and I look forward to it.

The Bill is short and contains a small number of clauses, so it should not detain us unduly long. Some Committees go on for months, but I suspect that we will be able to deal with the Bill in about three or four sittings. For that reason, we propose to meet again this afternoon and on Thursday at the times set out in the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

First, may I apologise for two things by way of preliminary? I have not served on a Committee as a Back Bencher for more than 20 years, and I have not been on a Committee for more than 12, so it is at least possible that I shall commit the occasional solecism. I apologise for that in advance.

Secondly, I have moved a manuscript amendment. I appreciate what you have just said about amendments, Mr. Bercow, and, with respect, I entirely agree that notice needs to be given. However, this is a somewhat exceptional situation. As you will see, the amendment would slip the whole thing back by an hour on Thursday afternoon and slip the start time back by an hour this afternoon. The reason for that is that it seems  likely that there will be a statement on post offices on Thursday. That is a matter of extreme importance to many Members, particularly rural Members. I imagine that the constituents of Buckingham are pretty concerned about what will happen to the post offices in their constituency, Mr. Bercow, and they would be very sad indeed if their representative could not express their views on that occasion. I am sure that that is also true of those in other constituencies, including Sleaford and North Hykeham. I therefore respectfully suggest that it is important that members of the Committee can be present at the statement.

As far as this afternoon is concerned, you will have heard Mr. Speaker reply to a point of order yesterday, Mr. Bercow, on the report of the Iraq study group. As there was in business questions last Thursday, there was pressure for the Prime Minister to make a statement. Mr. Speaker indicated obliquely that he might—I can put it no stronger than that—be favourably disposed to an urgent question. I can tell you, Mr. Bercow, that there is an urgent question before him for his consideration.

David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Several.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

I hear from the Liberal Benches that there are several. It is possible that Mr. Speaker will accede to an application for such a question. If he does, it would be a tragedy if hon. Members, particularly those of us who have condemned the war from the start, did not have the opportunity to be present. It is with those thoughts in mind that I have proposed my amendment. If agreed to, it would cause no prejudice to the conduct of the Committee, because as much time would be provided as under the motion. I cannot see any disadvantage to anybody, but much good would be served.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Bercow, does the amendment have to be taken en bloc, or are we allowed to take parts of it?

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak on the matter, he is welcome to do so. He will be able to develop his line of argument on the case for distinguishing between different parts of the proposed manuscript amendment that has been tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow.

Like the Solicitor-General, we anticipate that the whole discussion can be contained within the general parameters set out in the programme motion, irrespective of the differences between us. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I have listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and are sympathetic to his amendment. It is a sensible accommodation of likely business. It does not change the amount of time that the Committee intends to sit and I urge hon. Members to accept it, because it gives us cover if things elsewhere should occupy members of the Committee. My hon. Friend and I have the same interest in being  elsewhere, for the reasons stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The amendment keeps the total number of hours; we may well finish within that time, but in any event, it gives us flexibility to enable us to do well both parts of our job this week.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow, and I look forward to serving on the Committee under your chairmanship.

I would like to make two points. First, I sent my apologies as I was not able to attend the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday because of another commitment. I spoke to the Solicitor-General before the Sub-Committee, however, and I did not raise any objections to the suggested timetable. At that stage, I had not had an opportunity to hear the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It seems to me that he makes some pertinent points and if they can be accommodated during the sitting, I would support that.

Secondly, I raised an eyebrow when I saw Thursday’s timetable, as it is unusual for a Committee to start sitting at 1 pm. It is of some inconvenience to me, and I understand that the reason is a desire on the part of some hon. Members to leave the House rather early on Thursday afternoon. One wonders whether some will return on Monday, although that is a matter only of quiet speculation. I say only that if the times proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend could be accommodated, I would be wholly content to go along with them. We should try to achieve consensus, however. If any hon. Member feels that some parts of the proposals could be accommodated, it will be desirable to reach agreement on that in the time of this short debate. I am sorry that when the timetable of the Programming Sub-Committee was put forward, I did not know of the particular point that my right hon. and learned Friend has raised.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

Having listened to the arguments so far, I would like to propose my own amendment, which I hope will be acceptable to the whole Committee.

My hon. Friend was incorrect on one point: in my experience, it is normal for Committees to start at 1 pm and finish at 4 pm on a Thursday. Had I been available for nomination to the Programming Sub-Committee—

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I defer to my hon. Friend, but I say to him only that I have sat on many Committees of this House and I cannot remember a single Committee starting at 1 o’clock. Heaven knows that I have sat on enough Committees in the last four years—it seems to be my lot in life.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

It is a recent development.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman may be right that it is a recent development, but the last Committee that I served on, which was not so long ago, definitely started at 2 pm on a Thursday afternoon.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

It is usually a matter of agreement that the time is either 1 to 4 pm or 2 to 5 pm. Neither time is without precedent. My hon. Friend is right that 2 to5 pm is probably more normal, but 1 to 4 pm is not unusual—I put it no more strongly than that.

However, if the Committee agrees, I would like to accommodate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham as far as possible by suggesting that we start at 4.30 pm today, which would mean amending paragraph (1)(a) from4 to 4.30 pm.

David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The difficulty may be that 4.30 pm would not solve the problem that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred to. We are already expecting a statement. If we have an urgent question as well, it will depend on the order of the question and the statement as to which will take precedence.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

We may have four statements—we are not in a position guess. I was therefore attempting to take an acceptable course. The time could be 4.35 pm, or I would otherwise be content with 5 pm. I also suggest that a 2 pm start on Thursday ought to be acceptable. The Bill is relatively short. The Solicitor-General and I both had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that dealt with the Companies Bill, as indeed did you, Mr. Bercow—that was the first occasion on which I had the honour of serving under your chairmanship—which had rather more than 1,000 clauses. We have four sittings planned for this Bill; in the end, following some negotiation on the Companies Bill, we had 22 sittings to deal with 1,000 clauses. I dare say that we will be able to get through the issues in this Bill by Thursday, even if we take an hour of the total time for considering the Bill by changing the start time from 1 to 2 pm on Thursday. I therefore suggest that we change the start time from 1 to 2 pm on Thursday, accepting that we will finish at 4 pm.

I suggest that today’s start time should be 4.30 pm. However, whether the mood of the Committee will allow for a 5 pm start—

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Order. The Committee needs to be clear, as does the Chairman, as to whether the hon. Gentleman is formally tabling an amendment. At the moment, the only formal amendment tabled was tabled in manuscript form, perfectly legitimately, by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table what effectively constitutes an amendment to an amendment, he needs to be clear and explicit about the precise terms of that proposed amendment to an amendment, with which, I think I am right in saying, the Committee would first deal, before coming to the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Bercow. In the circumstances, I was seeking merely an indication from around the Committee as to whether the views I was expressing were going to receive support.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is of course seeking compromise, which I suppose I am in favour of. He does not like a proposed end time of 5 pm on Thursday. I am very reluctant to lose any time from the total available for our deliberations, but if he were to suggest an end time of 4.30 pm on that day, and a start  time today of 4.30 rather than 5 pm, we would keep the total amount of time. I would be willing to compromise on that basis.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicating that, on that basis, or in that expectation, he is prepared at this stage to withdraw his own amendment?

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

I would be perfectly willing to do so, on the basis that there is another amendment coming forward. If we are going to revert to the Government’s motion, the answer is no.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that clarification. On that basis, a revised amendment—an amendment to an amendment—may be forthcoming from the hon. Member for Reigate. The written record will testify to that, although it will only be viewable subsequently. He might wish to continue and then conclude his remarks.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

I have listened to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, understandably, is not prepared to concede that hour on Thursday. It would seem that having three hours is more important to him than starting at 2 o’clock. In those circumstances, I support his amendment to sit from 2 o’clock to 5 o’clock, but I fear that we might not have a majority in Committee in favour of that. I shall not move my amendment and I shall support his one, but I fear that we will not succeed.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For the avoidance of doubt, we have one amendment in front of us, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

I do not want to intrude on the private grief between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Reigate over the times that the Committee will start in the afternoon, or anything like that, but I would like some clarification on the current proposal. Is it that we begin at 5 o’clock on Tuesday and 1 o’clock on Thursday?

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

That is not my amendment.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

In that case, this to-ing and fro-ing between Opposition Members about their proposals has left me very much in the dark. I hope that you can give me some clarification, Mr. Bercow.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. It is indeed my responsibility to give clarification and I am happy to do so. I read out the amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I shall do so again because there has been considerable to-ing and fro-ing, as the Solicitor-General said.

The proposed amendment is that the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee be varied as follows: in paragraph (1)(a), leave out “4.00 p.m.” and insert “5.00 p.m.” In paragraph (1)(b), leave out “1.00 p.m.” and insert “2.00 p.m.” In paragraph (2), leave out“4.00 p.m.” and insert “5.00 p.m.”

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Bercow. Opposition Members were invited to the Programming Sub-Committee. I received an apology from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who was otherwise engaged, which I accept entirely. However, no concern was expressed in the Committee about the times that were set and the Opposition made no representations.

Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Bercow, I realise that the Government arrange things differently from the rest of us, but Back Benchers in Her Majesty’s Opposition are allowed their own opinion. My right hon. and learned Friend made a perfectly sensible suggestion, and we are trying to resolve the situation. He was not invited, or appointed to the Programming Sub-Committee.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful, but that is not a point of order, but a point of debate. The position is as stated.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I have no quarrel with a Back Bencher making a proposal. However, Front Benchers were invited to the Committee—

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

Let me finish my point and then I shall give way. Let us not get too agitated. We are only talking about the timings.

Opposition Front Benchers were invited to the Programming Sub-Committee, which met yesterday and had a brief discussion. No concern was expressed about the times and nothing led me to believe that Opposition Front Benchers would do anything other than accept them. However, I am not seeking to be unduly difficult and as far as I am concerned the main thing for the Government is that we get the Bill out following proper discussion by 4 pm on Thursday. I want to make it very clear that that is our view.

I shall be happy, however, with the Committee’s agreement, to accommodate the concerns of Back Benchers. If the Committee wishes to sit at 4.30 pm today, that is fine with me; I have no problem with that part of the proposal, or with a change of time from1 pm to 2 pm on Thursday. I shall be happy to sit from 2 pm until 4 pm. I am not happy, however, to extend the period over which we consider the Bill.

I seek your guidance Mr. Bercow, but as I understand it the 4 pm out-time is subject to a resolution of the House. We might not have to go back to the Commons to change it, but 4 pm is the time at which I should like the Bill to come out of the Committee. I shall be happy to listen to representations to the contrary, but we need to get on with consideration of the Bill if we are to get it out at the right time.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I do rather slightly regret the Solicitor-General’s remarks. I hoped that I had made it clear earlier that I had no criticism of the Government over the matter. I spoke to the Solicitor-General because I knew that I would have difficulty in attending the Programming Sub-Committee. If I had felt at that time that I objected to anything about the programme, I would have said so. I did not. Although I found the 1 pm start slightly unusual, it did not bother me in the least; I was happy to go along with it. However, I did not know about the problems raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If I believe that his argument has enough force, I will support it, even if we are defeated in the vote. If his amendment can be accommodated, I would seek to do so. That is no criticism whatsoever of the Government’s approach to the matter.

The Solicitor-Generalrose—

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

Let me respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, then I shall happily give way. The hon. Gentleman rightly has no criticism of the Government on this occasion. However, I am free to criticise the way in which the Opposition have dealt with the matter, and I have done so.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

I am seeking compromise, and that is what I have put to the Solicitor-General. I am sorry that he is not prepared to agree to extend the conclusion time on Thursday 14 December from 4 pm to 5 pm; I cannot think why he will not. No doubt he has his private reasons for that. However, what about today? This is more a point of order, Mr. Bercow: what time would we normally finish today?

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Ordinarily, we would finish at about 7 pm. That is not a binding rule, but it is customary.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

I am grateful. May I then continue with my intervention, because I suspected that that was the case. If the Solicitor-General would accede to a proposition that we continue sitting until 8 pm or thereabouts today, I would be content with an out-time of 4 pm on Thursday. The result of that would be that we would lose very little time overall.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Order. Just before the Solicitor-General responds, may I advise the Committee that the matter that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised and his proposal that the Committee sit somewhat later are matters that can be determined informally by the Committee. It is only right for me to say that, although it forms no part of the amendment, the Solicitor-General will have heard the point made in the intervention by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

Members of the Committee will have their own views about their appointments this evening. I am not sure when they will have expected the Committee to end and therefore what other appointments they might have. I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I make no commitment with regard to the time at which the Committee will finish its deliberations. There is no obligatory finishing time in the evening, so it is a matter for him whether he wishes  to press his amendment. I have no great objection to starting at 4.30 pm this afternoon if that is what he wishes to do, but I remind the Committee that we have now spent 25 minutes of the sitting wasting time in discussing how long it will be. I would rather get on to the substance of the Bill, which is very important. I give way, however, because I know that a couple of hon. Members wish to intervene.

David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I am getting rather frustrated by the length of the debate on something which should have been easily reconcilable. I hope that perhaps the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman mayin fact be three amendments rather than a single amendment, which will enable the Committee to reach a sensible decision. I also draw attention to the fact that no one should have any expectation as to how long the Committee will sit until this evening, other than having some recognition of the time of completion of business in the main Chamber. I therefore do not see that we have any difficulty with the time available for the Bill. If we can accommodate members of the Committee, surely it should be sensible to do so.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I sense that there is now a recognition of the consensus to start a bit later today. The first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment proposes a start a bit later on Thursday, and the second part of the motion, for reasons we all know, proposes that proceedings finish at four o’clock. We have the flexibility this evening and I hope that use will be made of that. Therefore, I support two parts of the amendment and not the third and then we can get on with the business.

Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)

Let us see. Providing that we can discuss or vote on amendments consecutively, if you are content with that, Mr. Bercow, we can deal with each of those amendments in time. Providing that we can do that, I suggest that we proceed and vote on the various times, so that we can make a decision and move on.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I already made the point about the informal understanding that could lead to a later finish tonight. I ought, as a matter of record, to explain that the so-called “get-out time” is not a matter of a resolution of the House; that is a question of the get-out date. Therefore, there is nothing binding, so far as the House is concerned, about the get-out time, although I heard the Solicitor-General’s view that the get-out time should remain as it is.

I intend to proceed as follows. I will ask the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham if he wishes to withdraw his existing amendment and to submit a revised amendment, including what I would describe—for shorthand purposes—as the 4.30 point. I do not propose at this point to take any further amendments and, presented with a suitably revised amendment by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that is in order, I propose to put that to the vote.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Bercow and in reply to your question, I am prepared to withdrawmy existing amendment, substitute 4.30 for 4 in paragraph (1) and leave the rest of the measure as it is presently drafted.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Can I just be clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to continue with that part of his amendment that inserts a 5 pm finish on Thursday?

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

No, it seems that at the moment that does not have the support of the Committee. In the interests of our agreement, I would like a 4.30 pm start today and 2 pm on Thursday. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

By way of background and for the benefit of Members not familiar with it, I ought to explain that as a result of deliberations on the Floor of the House on 1 November on the legislative process, a number of changes to that process were agreed by the House and have been reflected in revised Standing Orders. That is the background to the motion relating to the reporting of evidence.