The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
†
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)†
Cunningham,
Mr. Jim
(Coventry, South)
(Lab)
†
Grieve,
Mr. Dominic
(Beaconsfield)
(Con)
†
Heath,
Mr. David
(Somerton and Frome)
(LD)
†
Hesford,
Stephen
(Wirral, West)
(Lab)
†
Hogg,
Mr. Douglas
(Sleaford and North Hykeham)
(Con)
†
Hughes,
Simon
(North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD)
†
Johnson,
Ms Diana R.
(Kingston upon Hull, North)
(Lab)
†
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
†
McCarthy,
Kerry
(Bristol, East)
(Lab)
†
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
†
O'Brien,
Mr. Mike
(Solicitor-General)†
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew
(Croydon, Central)
(Con)
†
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
†
Ryan,
Joan
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department)†
Wright,
Mr. Iain
(Hartlepool)
(Lab)
John
Benger, Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public
Bill
Committee
Tuesday
12 December
2006
(Morning)
[Mr.
John Bercow in the
Chair]
10.30
am
The
Chairman: 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.
The
Solicitor-General (Mr. Mike O'Brien): 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.
Amendment
proposed,
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.’.—[Mr.
Hogg.]
Mr.
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): 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.
Mr.
David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD):
Several.
Mr.
Hogg: 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.
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): 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?
The
Chairman: 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 (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD):
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.
Mr.
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): 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.
Mr.
Blunt: 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—
Mr.
Grieve: 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: It is a recent
development.
Mr.
Grieve: 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.
Mr.
Blunt: 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.
Mr.
Heath: 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.
Mr.
Blunt: 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—
The
Chairman: 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.
Mr.
Blunt: 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.
