I beg to move,

That the programme order of 12th January 2004 in relation to the Housing Bill be varied as follows—

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table. In that column, any reference to new Clauses, Amendments or new Shedules relating to any of Parts 1 to 7 does not include new Clauses, Amendments or new Schedules relating to overcrowding or the definition of 'house in multiple occupation'.

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

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.

We have important issues to consider today and I look forward to debating them. I therefore intend to be brief in speaking to the programme motion.

The Housing Bill will help to create a fairer and better housing market and it will protect the most vulnerable. It will fulfil two manifesto commitments, and will introduce many of the legislative measures necessary to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy prime minister in February last year. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend Yvette Cooper, and I are genuinely grateful to all members of Standing Committee E for the full and positive contributions that they made in the substantial amount of time allowed to consider the Bill. We had full debates on all the substantive issues and, in my view, their contributions and amendments have improved the Bill.

We have a number of amendments to consider today. My hon. Friend the Member for Castleford and Pontefract and I committed ourselves to revisit a range of issues, and I am delighted that we have been able to do so. I am sure that members of Standing Committee E will welcome the Government amendments, the vast Majority of which respond to concerns raised in their debates. The Government have tabled a programme motion that allocates time for consideration of each part of the Bill. The proposed order of consideration broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the Clause that first introduces them, as their provisions relate to that particular clause and it seems appropriate to consider them together. It also seems logical to discuss new clauses relating to each part alongside amendments to that part. Part 2 deals with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, so it seems sensible to consider amendments relating to the definition of HMOs when we consider that part. Government and non-Government amendments on overcrowding will be considered when we discuss part 6.

This is a long and complex Bill. In fact, it could easily have been four or five separate Bills, and throughout our deliberations it has been subject to major Government Amendment and change. Even on Report, many Government amendments have been tabled. Given the grouping of amendments and the knives, it is unlikely that the programme motion will allow us to do justice to all the important matters that need to be discussed as part of the public debate, so we shall oppose the motion. I do not intend to detain the House as we want to get on with business. However, the Government are again forcing a diktat on the House and we wish to make it clear that we oppose their manner of conducting business in the Chamber.

I accept that the Government have discussed with Opposition parties the order of consideration and where the knives will fall. There has been agreement about that, but there is clearly not agreement about the amount of time allowed for debate. Two days were allowed for the Report stage and Third Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Three days have been allocated next week to consideration of the Pensions Bill, although that may be because the Government have not finished writing it. There is clearly a case for allowing more time to consider the Housing Bill. There is a great deal of interest from Labour Back Benchers, who have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, but we are unlikely to reach all of them. The Government have not only sold the Bill short by failing to allow for proper discussion of amendments and new clauses, but have sold their own Back Benchers short. Labour Members want to discuss tenancy deposit schemes, compulsory leasing and so on, but will struggle to do so given the time allowed for debate.

We cannot support the motion because it allows insufficient time to discuss the Bill. Whatever good will Ministers have shown about dividing up the available time, regrettably they do not have the clout to win sufficient time from the business managers, so we shall vote against the motion.

I wish to place on the record the fact that, yet again, the Government are giving the House pathetically inadequate time to deal with a Bill which, by any measure, is important. A mere glance at the Speaker's provisional list of amendments and the Government's suggested allocation of time reveals the shocking truth. One and a quarter hours, for example, has been allowed for amendments on housing conditions. A debate in the Chamber should provide Members of Parliament with an opportunity to express a view about an issue or set of issues. The first group of amendments on housing conditions—there can be few issues more important to our constituents—is a large one, yet the Government have insulted the House by offering 659 Members of Parliament one and a quarter hours to debate it. That is the extent of the Government's impertinence.

The situation is even worse when we reach the second group of amendments, on houses in multiple occupation, for which another hour and a quarter has been allowed. The group includes a large number of Government amendments and new clauses, and subsumed within it is a separate group of amendments on interim and final management orders. Limited time has been offered to all Members of Parliament, including Ministers and Opposition spokesmen. Home information packs are a controversial part of the Bill but, again, a mere hour and a quarter has been allowed for discussion of amendments, including many Government amendments.

Is my right hon. Friend not being a little too generous to the Government? If we wish to have a Division, the time taken is subtracted from debating time. That is one way in which the Government put pressure on Labour Members who feel strongly about an issue not to have a vote.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because there is a danger that these things are becoming accepted as the way in which the House of Commons works. We are now operating under completely artificial constraints. There is no reason why our debate should take six and a half hours—we could take as long as we wanted. In fact, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there is provision for a business motion to be moved to allow us to continue our deliberations after 7 pm, and there is open-ended business following proceedings on the Bill. Bizarrely, unlimited time has been allowed for the subsequent debate on a House of Commons matter which, Mr. Speaker, is dear to your heart. The Order Paper states, I am happy to say, "Until any hour", yet on such a vital Bill, with dozens of Government amendments and dealing with crucial matters that affect our constituents' everyday lives, the Government have the impudence to say, "You, the House of Commons, will have only six and a half hours to consider all these matters." That is an outrage, but it is in danger of passing into our proceedings as though it were perfectly normal. Members of Parliament are expected to accept it, take it in their stride, shrug and say, "Obviously, I can't participate because there is so little time."

Any examination of the time proposed in the motion would show that it is an insult to the House of Commons and to the parliamentary process. For the Minister, in his insouciant way, to sit there and say, "Take it or leave it. This is it. This is all the Government believe the House of Commons should have", illustrates how far the House of Commons has fallen. It pains me to say so, but that, sadly, is the truth. Here we are, reduced to an hour and a quarter—the total time allocated to all Members of Parliament to debate a subject as important as, for example, home information packs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even to call this a programme is an insult? Programmes are supposed to be consensual; this is a guillotine.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is true. I may have slipped into conceding that this is a so-called programme. My hon. Friend is right: they are systematic guillotines of all business. Today's motion is a prime example of what we have to put up with. It is increasingly difficult for us to look our voters in the face and claim that we are even beginning to do our job, as their representatives, in scrutinising legislation. In no way can these time limits allow us properly to scrutinise; in no way can proper speeches be made by Members of Parliament—points of criticism or points of elucidation. The Government do not allow us to do that any more.

My right hon. Friend is probably far too modest to say that such a motion is an attempt to gag him. The time being taken now—this is a criticism not of him, but of the Government—comes out of the time that the Government generously say we can have to debate other matters. That is another scandal.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many people try to gag me in many different ways, but my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that that is usually not very successful. I shall be demonstrating that later today in the business that will come on, courtesy of the Government, well after 7 o'clock and may continue for some time thereafter. So gagging me is usually a fairly futile exercise, although it is tried from time to time, as my hon. Friend points out.

All in all, the motion is an egregious example of so-called programming, which is in fact systematic vicious guillotining of business in the House in order that the Government can get their business with a minimum of debate. I am glad we are opposing it.

The programme motion—or guillotine, as it is better called—is yet another example of the Government trying to remove from the House powers to hold them to account. I shall address the paltry one and a quarter hours that has been allocated to home improvement packs, which is a detailed, complex matter on which many Government amendments have been tabled. It is a matter that is crucial to consumers, to the housing market and the operation of that market, and to the industry—estate agents and solicitors. The House must get such a crucial matter right, and in one and a quarter hours there is not enough time properly to debate all the detailed amendments that have been tabled to that part of the Bill.

Within the total time, the Bill is supposed to get its Third Reading. It is outrageous and a removal of the powers of the House properly to hold the Government to account.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 146.

Question accordingly agreed to.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have just received information that an explosion has occurred at the ICL Plastics factory in my Constituency. I understand that the building has collapsed, and reports mention more than 60 casualties, with many people still lying in the rubble. May I ask, through your good offices, if the appropriate Department will investigate at the earliest opportunity, and if a Minister will come to this House to make a statement as soon as more information is known?

The hon. Lady is a Constituency neighbour of mine, and I know the Maryhill district very well indeed. I will ensure that the appropriate Ministers go about the business of gathering whatever information it is possible to obtain. I am sure that the fire service and the police will do their best, and I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has just passed a timetable motion, and after the five and a half hours of debate you, or whoever is in the Chair, is likely to say, "Consideration concluded. Third Reading, what day?" May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is to mislead the House, and that it would be more suitable to say that the Government's timetable means that no further discussion can take place? Rather than misleading the House by saying, "Consideration concluded," perhaps a new form of words should be found.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair would never mislead the House.