HC Deb 07 February 2001 vol 362 cc930-42

5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  1. (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
  2. (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed this evening. The programme is supplemental to the one that was approved for consideration in Committee, which finished as planned on 1 February. I pay tribute to the members of what was an eventful Committee, coinciding with the addition to the family of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and the promotion to Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I feel sure that the resident of 74 Acacia avenue, who featured in many of the exchanges in Committee, celebrated both events in his local premises licensed for entertainment and the sale of intoxicating liquor.

In all seriousness, we had a constructive debate, with valuable contributions from both sides of the Committee. I am grateful for that. There was full discussion of all the relevant matters and the debates were completed within the time set by the previous programme motion.

In Committee, a limited number of minor drafting amendments were approved to simplify and clarify the Bill. The Government have proposed a few more amendments of a similar nature, and some that respond specifically to concerns raised by hon. Members in debate in Committee. We are not introducing by way of Government amendments any major new issue of principle. Therefore, one day should give us ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill. For these reasons, I commend the motion to the House.

3.36 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)

Here we are yet again. The Government want to drive through the Bill—

Mr. Raynsford

Of course.

Mr. Waterson

In many ways, the Bill is a perfect example of the Government's approach. It is all hype and no delivery. Before the general election, Labour promised that it would tackle gazumping, but the Bill does nothing of the sort. It is a perfect illustration of the nanny state at work. It will over-complicate and add extra costs to the process of buying and selling a house. It will criminalise ordinary citizens in private contractual dealings, making them subject to the same level of penalties as apply to the carrying of a flick knife. The Government are seeking again to suppress debate in the House and to ignore informed criticism.

The Minister began with a string of in-jokes, which I think will be familiar only to members of the Committee, Acacia avenue being one of them. The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that the Committee finished as planned on 1 February. I do not know what alternative he was suggesting. Was it that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and I should have hired a Committee Room to continue the debate regardless?

Even after the date set for the close of proceedings in Committee, I applied the usual poetic licence to allow the Minister to make his kind remarks. As is normal and appropriate on such an occasion, he thanked the joint Chairmen for their chairmanship and for their skill in bringing the Committee to an end at 5 pm on 1 February. With all due respect to those two able Chairmen, that had nothing to do with them; we finished on 1 February because the Government said that we should do so.

The Government did not say at the beginning of consideration in Committee that we should finish on 1 February—they said within days, if not hours, of the Bill being published that that would be the length of the Bill's consideration in Committee. That started as a proposal, and I use that word with some care, that there would be 12 sittings, and we had 12 sittings. Had it not been that rather unexpectedly at the last minute the Liberal Democrats withdrew a group of new clauses, we would not have reached the debate on, or would have finished in the middle of debating, an important new clause that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).

Mr. Raynsford

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there was no request from the Opposition for the Committee to meet after dinner on any of the evening sittings? Indeed, quite the opposite: the Opposition Whip requested that we should finish early on one occasion.

Mr. Waterson

I do not recall that, but I do remember that, on one or two occasions, we sat until rather later than 5 o'clock.

The answer is clear. The Government said, as soon as the Bill was published, that there would be 12 Committee sittings. Then they produced a programme motion which did not change at all. They tried to make out—although I think that the Minister has abandoned this tack—that it was agreed by the usual channels. Nothing could be more wrong. Of course, there were discussions through the usual channels and we tried to be constructive—the Minister was good enough to use that word in Committee and just now—and ensure that most of the Bill was properly debated. If one is given a certain length of string, one is going to make the best use of that length. It is unfair and unreasonable of the Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that we had a full discussion of all aspects of the Bill. How does he know what other arguments Opposition Members might have deployed in Committee? By whose definition was there a full discussion of every aspect of the Bill? In some cases, the discussion by Opposition Members was downright perfunctory because we wanted to get on to meatier aspects of the Bill.

I am certainly not going to take criticism from Ministers if, in the final sitting, we tried to get on to the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon on the important issue of shorthold tenancies. The Minister said, rather grandly, that we would have ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill today. I suppose that we should be mildly grateful that we do not have a statement on a weighty matter, but are starting business with the programme motion, debate on which can last for 45 minutes. All of that period comes straight out of the time for Report stage. We will then have Third Reading at the end of the evening. The current proposal is that we limit that to an hour, minus time spent on any divisions that might result from debates before 9 o'clock.

It is therefore extraordinary that the Minister should claim that there is ample time for debate. How does he know? I see that there is relatively little interest in this issue on the Government Benches. Ministers think that they are running not a democracy, but a Swiss railway system. The Bill will come into the station at 10 pm; that is all that Ministers are interested in.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is characteristically generous and understates his case with his usual subtlety. If this were a one-off, it would be bad enough, but it is becoming the rule or norm, not the exception, and is happening day in, day out in this Parliament. As a result, proper debate is being truncated and the people of this country are not getting the hearing that they deserve for issues that are pertinent and, in this case, important to them for the reasons given by hon. Friend. This is a serial crime, not a one-off offence.

Mr. Waterson

My hon. Friend makes his point with great power and conviction.

I repeat that the Government are in the business of bringing the Bill into the station on time. They cannot do that with a real railway network, but they seem to be able to do it with their legislation. It does not matter how many issues right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise, they have to fit all of them into the time which the Government have decided is sufficient. I have a shrewd suspicion that not only did they decide from the outset, when the Bill was published, that 12 Committee sittings would be ample—to use the Minister's word—but that they would rush through all the remaining stages in one day, as they are seeking to do today.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House which parts of the Bill the Committee was unable to scrutinise or, indeed, which amendments tabled by the Opposition could not be debated in those 12 sittings?

Mr. Waterson

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. He will remember that there were points of order from Labour Back-Bench Members—I think that he was one of the hon. Members, but if not, I do him an injustice—complaining about the amount of time that we were taking in Committee on part 1.

Let us remind ourselves that part I deals with seller's packs and a transaction entered into by about 1.5 million people every year. It is extremely important to many people. For most people in this country, it is the biggest transaction they will ever undertake, yet hon. Members including, I think, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) were bobbing up and down, complaining about the length of time that we were taking on the matter.

We took a little longer on part I and probably rather less time on part II than we might otherwise have wanted, and possibly than the hon. Gentleman might have wanted. Paradoxically, because of the procedural situation, the opposite could be the case today. Because of the weight of new clauses, many of them Government new clauses, relating to part II, we may well run out of time to deal with part I if we are not careful.

Mr. Love

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If members of the majority side had realised how little the Opposition had to say about part II, we might not have moved procedural motions to end discussion on part I.

Mr. Waterson

The hon. Gentleman might remember that we spent almost half our time on part II, which I do not complain about. I suspect that he felt a little short-changed, as did some of us, at the way that that came about.

It is typical of the Government that they have no intention of ensuring that both parts of the Bill are fully debated. Not only are they trying to suppress debate in the House yet again, but throughout the Committee stage they chose to ignore informed criticism, and in some cases to denigrate it. Any informed person or organisation, let alone an hon. Member, who seeks to disagree is dismissed as wrong or worse. Sometimes, perhaps, such people are regarded as being slightly detached—to use a familiar phrase—or unfocused.

The Law Society was one of the first to fall foul of the Minister's liverishness on one occasion. The Law Society represents some 80,000 solicitors in England and Wales. When the Opposition in Committee quoted—no one on the Government side would do it—the Law Society's concerns about and criticisms of the proposals in part I, what did we get from the Minister? He said: I would take the wider issues of the Law Society with a slight pinch of salt. It may have been preoccupied with different things in recent months and perhaps has not focused"— that word again— enough on the local experience of the seller's pack."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 January 2001; c. 186.]

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall what I told him in Committee: that the chairman of the Law Society in Bristol—where the seller's pack pilot took place—was one of the strongest supporters and advocates of the seller's pack. I suggested to the Opposition, who seemed to have difficulty understanding this, that it was probably better to listen to people with practical, on-the-ground experience than to others perhaps defending a vested interest.

Mr. Waterson

Ah! Now we are getting to that. The Minister will no doubt remember what I said in Committee: that of course the president—we have nothing so humble as chairman in the legal profession—of the Bristol Law Society is an enthusiast. I said to the Minister, and I repeat the invitation, that if he would like to give £360,000 worth of taxpayers' money to the Eastbourne legal profession, I can guarantee him that the president of the Eastbourne Law Society will be a convert. The only problem is that the Minister cannot go round the entire country running pilot schemes in every town and city.

We will deal in more detail with the seller's pack, and I do not want to stray beyond the bounds of this debate, but if the Government are handing over such money to a local Law Society, and giving a great shot in the arm at taxpayers' expense to the local legal profession and local estate agents, of course they will all have smiles on their faces, just as the people who participated in the scheme have smiles on their faces—they were given their seller's packs, including their surveys.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman realises that he is going beyond the scope of the programme motion.

Mr. Waterson

I allowed myself to be led down another path, there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

For the benefit of the taxpayers who pay our salaries, will my hon. Friend confirm that there are no fewer than 74 new clauses and amendments to be considered? Will he also confirm that, on the assumption that we take one hour to debate Third Reading, the Government have the audacity to expect us to devote fewer than four minutes to the consideration of each new clause and amendment?

While my hon. Friend is about it, will he also provide an invaluable lesson on the British constitution to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who seems fondly to imagine that just because the Standing Committee considered matters in some detail, that somehow discharges our obligation to do so? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the importance of this occasion is that the Standing Committee's deliberations are being reported to, and may be pronounced on by, the rest of the House?

Mr. Waterson

My hon. Friend makes two very important points, and he is absolutely right. The Government do not think that people such as my hon. Friend should be in the Chamber debating all these new clauses and amendments—let alone those that have already been considered, albeit only by the Standing Committee. The Government think that Back Benchers should be either in their constituencies trying to get re-elected or sitting in their offices dictating into machines. That is the role of Back Benchers under this Government.

Mr. Bercow

Well, it is not my role.

Mr. Waterson

I know that it is not my hon. Friend's approach, and all credit to him for that.

My hon. Friend touched on an issue that I have mentioned only in passing. That is the weight of the new clauses and amendments tabled not only by the Government but by the Liberal Democrats. It is important that there should be the opportunity, on Report, to have a rethink and to take stock. Progress on the Bill has been made at a gallop since it was published just before Christmas; it is now only the beginning of February.

It is right for people—even, perhaps, the Government—to have an opportunity to table new clauses and amendments, but the Government must allow such proposals to be properly debated when appropriate. There is an exact parallel with the debate on the original programme motion—to which I think this is a supplement or amendment—in that the Government had already decided on the length of time needed in Standing Committee before a single amendment or new clause had been tabled. That is precisely the same attitude as we see today.

Before I was led down the path that took me slightly off the subject a moment ago, I was saying why I thought that debate on the Bill was being suppressed. I gave as an example not only the way in which the matter has been dealt with in the House, but the way in which major, serious bodies, organisations and individuals—I shall come to an example of that in a moment—have been dismissed out of hand by Ministers during the course of these debates.

I mentioned the Law Society earlier. Another good example came from Mr. Nigel Holt, the director of the Independent Association of Estate Agents. That is not some little group of eccentric estate agents out of kilter with the rest of the profession; it is a body that represents 18,000 estate agents across the country. When Mr. Holt had the temerity to write to me, I had the even greater temerity to read out some of his views.

Mr. Raynsford

Lack of judgment.

Mr. Waterson

Let me come to that very issue. Mr. Holt is perfectly entitled to comment on this part of the Bill, not only as an individual but as the representative of 18,000 fellow members of his profession. However, the Minister's comment on Mr. Holt was: Opposition Members often dredge out some extraordinary people who have written long letters, possibly in green ink.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 January 2001; c. 187.] Mr. Holt obviously has a sense of humour, because he has since written to me using green ink. However, he is not at all impressed with the Minister. It is hopeless if we are trying to have a serious debate that affects a lot of people—both parts of the Bilk in their different ways, affect many people—and Ministers are not prepared to take seriously the views expressed in a constructive fashion by people such as Mr. Holt, bodies such as the Law Society, and others.

Mr. Raynsford

Will the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what led to my comments? Will he confirm that Mr. Holt's letter accused the Government of behaving like Mussolini? If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with that judgment—and whether he agrees with another ill-judged comment, by an Opposition Front-Bencher, who described local authority trading standards departments as being like the Gestapo?

Mr. Waterson

We shall come on to what I have termed the conveyancing Gestapo in due course. It is true that Mr. Holt made a passing reference to Mussolini, which I took to be jocular; but it was in the context of the application of a set of criminal sanctions to people who failed to get together their seller's packs in time. We consider that to be one of the most objectionable parts of the Bill.

Mr. Holt is perfectly entitled to express his views, and perfectly entitled to express them in trenchant terms. It certainly caught the Minister's attention, and he has been banging on about it ever since—but Ministers are not paid to dismiss the views of professionals and others with genuine opinions as simply the views of people with an interest in these matters.

Mr. Hayes

The comparison with Mussolini does not, in fact, bear much scrutiny: Mussolini made the trains run on time, whereas the Government have done precisely the opposite. Leaving that aside, however, may I suggest that it is organisations of that type—independent outside bodies—that look to the Report stage of a Bill for the raising and debating of their considered views by Members? That is not always possible in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Report stage is vital if the House is to take into account that broader appreciation.

Mr. Waterson

My hon. Friend puts in a nutshell the role of the various stages of scrutiny of legislation. It is up to us not simply to make points that may occur to us, but to act as a conduit through which organisations and individuals can make their concerns known. The Government have not made it easy for outside bodies to comment; they published the Bill just before Christmas and it went straight into Committee on 8 January, when we returned from the recess. Some organisations were caught very much on the hop.

I shall not labour the point because we dealt with it at length in Committee; but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which represents some 98 per cent. of lenders dealing with properties, also received the ministerial treatment. It was clearly hectored and bullied by Ministers into withdrawing many of its objections to the Bill.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made the case with the gentleness and restraint for which he is renowned in all parts of the House. On the subject of arrogant authoritarianism, however, will my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) confirm that in the Programming Sub-Committee he specifically asked the Government for an additional seven hours of debate in the final Standing Committee sitting, and that the Sub-Committee—meeting hole-in-corner, in private—chose to vote down that proposed change in the timetable on the strength of a Government-whipped vote?

Mr. Waterson

I was about to deal with the issue of the Programming Sub-Committee. My hon. Friend, I believe, has his own experience of these strange new bodies that meet in secret and are barred to hon. Members who may wish to participate, other than those who are members of the bodies concerned. Not even all members of the Standing Committee are entitled to attend. Moreover, no record is kept of their proceedings.

It is true that we tried to extend the scope of the sittings motion. We spoke of the complexity of the Bill, and made a number of points on which I have already touched. We also stumbled across the fact that a secret deal had been made between the Government and the Liberal Democrats to limit the time spent on debate.

One of the major points we made was that an awful lot of the powers to be taken under the Bill would be taken by way of regulations. The Minister has been unable to produce draft regulations, which one sometimes has available. In fairness, he produced a document that set out some of the thinking behind some of the possible regulations, but even that shopping list was added to as the Committee went on.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the main thrust of his argument is that he wants more opportunity for genuine debate on those issues? If that is the case, why has he occupied more than half the total allocated time for debate on this issue?

Mr. Waterson

I do not know why the Liberal Democrats are taking up that matter with us. They should take it up with their friends on the Government Benches, instead of kowtowing at every possible opportunity to the Government and doing little deals behind the scenes to reduce the amount of debate. I am not surprised. I doubt whether we will see many Liberal Democrats during this debate, no matter how long or short it is.

I have set out the history. There has been no delay, filibustering or anything remotely close to it by Conservative Committee members. The Minister was good enough to describe our contributions as constructive. We ended up spending less time on part II than part I, which was contrary to the wishes of some Labour Members. We have many additional Government amendments and new clauses to deal with. As I have said, because of the quirk of our procedure, we could run out of time to debate part I, which will occupy the minds of some 1.5 million people a year. Sixty-nine per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers.

Mr. Raynsford

In view of the hon. Gentleman's response to the question from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), will he tell the House why, on the penultimate day of the Committee, he personally wrote to the Government Whip to ask that we should agree to try to get to the end of clause 26 on that day and finish then or at 7 pm, whichever was earlier? If that was his view in Committee, how can he come out with all that synthetic indignation about a lack of time for debate?

Mr. Waterson

It is simple. It seemed to be for the convenience of Committee members to finish that part of the Bill and start afresh. It was clever of the Whip to keep the note, but the Minister seems to be trying to say that he wants those matters to be debated in the middle of the night. Is that what he is saying? We are not going to take any lessons from Ministers. They think that we have had ample time to debate all the issues in Committee. They think that we have ample time today. We sensibly allocated the time as much as possible within the limits of the original programme motion. The Minister is trying to make much the same point that he began with—that the Committee finished on 1 February. Of course it did. It had to finish on 1 February. It had to finish at 5 pm on 1 February because that is what the programme motion said.

At least there is no suggestion from the Minister that this has all been agreed between the usual channels. Agreement subject to duress is no agreement at all. That was our attitude at the beginning of the Bill, it has been our attitude throughout, and it is our attitude today. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.

4.3 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I am pleased to be given the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but I have to correct him on three points. First, there was no secret deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. Secondly, there was a deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives: we voted for the motion to extend by seven hours the business of the Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge. I see the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), nodding. Thirdly, no one could accuse the Government of being like Mussolini—the trains do not run on time.

All hon. Members who have participated in this short debate have had the disadvantage of not being a member of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I have been a member of it and have been involved throughout in the discussions on the way in which we should seek to make our business more business-like.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne have completely missed the point. Although the Government are entitled to pass their business if they have a majority in the House, which they clearly have, and to set what they believe should be the target date for completion of that business, they have no right to set in stone the way in which that business should be considered in Committee or on Report.

In our report to the House, which it accepted, the Modernisation Committee proposed that programme motions should be used as I have just described, but that has not happened in this case or in several recent cases. Consequently, my colleagues and I have voted against those motions. Liberal Democrat Members are still very much in favour of programming our business, but the Government have imposed those motions on the Opposition parties rather than allowing us to say precisely how we should consider each of the Bills.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler

No, I shall not take any interventions. There is very little time because of the long interventions by the hon. Gentleman and the long speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).

This programme motion raises another issue. As has already been acknowledged, the Bill is an important measure with two very important parts. The first part deals with changes to the overall procedure by which we buy and sell houses, which is very important to our fellow citizens. The introduction of seller's packs is extremely important to individual citizens. Although there might a good case for introducing some elements of the provisions as suggested, other elements are still extremely controversial. I am sure that that view is shared by Members on both sides of the House. Liberal Democrat Members oppose, for example, the idea that the failure to have a seller's pack should be a criminal offence. Such a provision seems outrageous.

The second part of the Bill—it has had insufficient attention until now, but it will certainly require attention today—deals with the preparation and implementation by local authorities of homelessness strategies. Those provisions will require very careful consideration.

As hon. Members have said, the time being provided to discuss eight groups of amendments—74 amendments and new clauses—is insufficient. I really do wonder why the Government thought that it was necessary to complete this business by 10 pm. Liberal Democrat Members would be quite happy to be here until midnight. The business that we are considering is extremely important. It is far more important than some of the debates that we have had to listen to, when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has kept us here on intrinsically less important issues.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Tyler

No.

Of the 74 amendments, 28 are Government amendments, demonstrating the Government's acceptance that the measure is unfinished business. Although we may welcome many of those amendments, we do not welcome others and believe that they should be carefully considered.

Previously, the Minister has referred to the measure as work in progress. It is unsatisfactory that, all too often, the House does not complete proper consideration of its legislation and sends that unfinished business to the other place. That is intrinsically inefficient and not a good way of handling our business. This motion does not reflect the Bill's importance, and my colleagues and I shall vote against it.

4.8 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I have not been following the Homes Bill in great detail, but I have been following in considerable detail the Government's practice of tabling programme motions. I have spoken to five or six such motions since the practice began and I wish to renew my protest.

The House will have only four and a half hours to consider the Bill on Report. There are eight groups of amendments. On any view of the matter, some of those amendments are important. There is no point in the Minister saying that some or most of the amendments are but a reflection of what was said in Committee. Although that may be true, this is the first opportunity on which the House as a whole will have an opportunity to discuss the amendments. It is quite wrong that a practice should be adopted by which the House as a whole does not have the opportunity either to discuss or to vote on a number of substantive amendments.

Although I do not usually agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), he is right on this issue. The consequence of this programme motion is that some substantive amendments will be discussed first in the other place and will return to this place, if at all, essentially as Lords amendments. That cannot be right. It is an abuse of the process of democracy.

My final point is one that I have made before, but it is of cardinal importance. Democracy depends on the electorate believing that legislation has been carefully scrutinised by their representatives in Parliament. That is the assumption on which the political compromises of life stand. If parliamentary representatives are not able to carry out that scrutiny, that assumption falls. If we fail in our duty of scrutiny of legislation and the consequences of Government action and policy, we undermine the basis of accountable government.

4.10 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

The Minister has repeated Ministers' habitual refrain—that our obligation is merely to tidy up the Bill and engage in a little minor drafting. We are also told that the Government amendments have been tabled to meet Opposition concerns expressed in Standing Committee or on Second Reading.

Mr. Raynsford

That is not the case.

Mr. Bercow

The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but he appears to be in disagreement with himself. Members of the Government often disagree with each other; more often than not, Ministers disagree with Conservative Members, and it is not entirely unprecedented for members of Opposition parties to disagree with each other. However, when a Minister on the Treasury Bench disagrees with himself, it signals a new departure. The Minister said that the amendments cover relatively minor matters accommodating drafting changes and Opposition concerns: for him to deny that is, even by the Government's standards, spectacularly foolish and contradictory.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

One group of amendments deals with energy efficiency. The amendments concerned strike me as bureaucratic, interventionist and regulatory nonsense. I should not be surprised if they had been penned by Friends of the Earth. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate this rubbish and vote against it.

Mr. Tyler

They are Conservative amendments.

Mr. Forth

I know. I simply want to illustrate the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—that the assumption that our task involves merely routine and trivial tidying up could not be more wrong. The amendments contain some real nonsense, to which we should give detailed attention.

Mr. Bercow

There are important matters to be considered, and much nonsense. There is probably a superfluity of nonsense in the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been devised by a discredited, nanny-state, interventionist, mollycoddling Labour Government of the worst variety.

I apologise sincerely to the House for my understatement. My abiding problem is that I do not speak clearly or loudly enough so that my message is unmistakeable. I am sorry if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that I have displayed a certain inhibition and wetness in what I have said, but he will know that I do not propose to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), even to the extent of the dotting of an i or crossing of a t.

As a member of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I sign up with enthusiasm and alacrity to the principle of collective responsibility. Therefore, it is to be assumed that I am in agreement with my Front-Bench colleagues in every particular and at all times. However, I am but one small and humble—[Interruption.] Whether or not I am humble, I am certainly small. I am only one of the 659 hon. Members in this House, and I repeat the important point that other hon. Members should be able to consider the amendments—Government, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—that have been tabled. That is especially true for hon. Members who did not have the privilege of belonging to the Standing Committee. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend has views on each of the 74 new clauses and amendments, and he should have at least a modest opportunity to express those views.

It is both salutary and illustrative of the attitude of the new robots who pepper the Labour Benches that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who said that we need not trouble ourselves with any significant consideration because these matters had been debated in detail in Committee, has—entirely appropriately, in one sense—absented himself from the Chamber. He was apparently on the Standing Committee, and we congratulate him on the status he thereby acquired. He thinks that the Government have got it right. He thinks that there has been enough discussion. He thinks that his assessment should suffice as the assessment of the House as a whole.

If other right hon. and hon. Members take a different view, what do the Government propose? Do they seek to persuade and convert by power and argument? No. What are those pigs I see flying before my eyes? Instead, they propose to ram through their intended truncation of debate on the strength of a whipped vote, with all the new robots going through the Lobby on the strength of the payroll vote, the knuckle-crunching, the threats, the favours, the offers and the denials that are within the power of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—the Patronage Secretary—and her underlings on the Treasury Bench.

The majority of Labour Members of Parliament are probably aware of, at best, one tenth of the contents of the Bill—generosity tends to get the better of me. The betting is that they care about an even smaller proportion of the provisions than that. Some of us do care about the provisions, however. Some of us are inclined to pursue—it is relevant to homes, the involvement of local authorities and the state of local government expenditure—the implications of measures that the Government might take for the state of local finances.

I would welcome the opportunity to express a view and to hear that of the Minister on, for example, the effect of the change in the rules governing the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt. I might be tempted to expatiate on that subject because it is important to council tax payers, the future of housing provision, the credibility of local government and the relationship between local and central Government. About that, I suspect, unless the Government reconsider their draconian proposal, we will have very little opportunity, if any, to say much of significance.

The Government's attitude is, "We have our view; we have the majority; we simply do not care what you think." I emphasise that whenever we mention the public, who might be interested in our proceedings, the unfailing reaction of Members on the Government Benches is to snort and say, "How many?". They do not think that members of the public are interested in our debates. If they are not, it is because of the sheer disdain, indifference and contempt with which this anti-parliamentary, new Labour, quack Administration treat right hon. and hon. Members. Quite frankly, their attitude is plastic, supercilious—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 169.

Division No. 109] [4.19 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Clapham, Michael
Ainger, Nick Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Clark, Dr Lynda
Alexander, Douglas (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Allen, Graham Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ashton, Joe Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Atherton, Ms Candy Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Austin, John Coaker, Vernon
Bailey, Adrian Colman, Tony
Barnes, Harry Connarty, Michael
Barron, Kevin Cooper, Yvette
Battle, John Corbett, Robin
Bayley, Hugh Corbyn, Jeremy
Beard, Nigel Corston, Jean
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Cousins, Jim
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Cox, Tom
Bennett, Andrew F Cranston, Ross
Benton, Joe Crausby, David
Berry, Roger Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Betts, Clive Cummings, John
Blackman, Liz Cunningham, Jim (Cos'try S)
Blears, Ms Hazel Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Blizzard, Bob Darvill, Keith
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Davidson, Ian
Borrow, David Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Dean, Mrs Janet
Bradshaw, Ben Denham, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen Dismore, Andrew
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Dobbin, Jim
Browne, Desmond Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Burden, Richard Doran, Frank
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Dowd, Jim
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Drew, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Drown, Ms Julia
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Caplin, Ivor Edwards, Huw
Casale, Roger Efford, Clive
Caton, Martin Ellman, Mrs Louise
Cawsey, Ian Ennis, Jeff
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Etherington, Bill
Chaytor, David Field, Rt Hon Frank
Church, Ms Judith Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim McGuire, Mrs Anne
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna McIsaac, Shona
Flint, Caroline McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Foster, Fit Hon Derek McNulty, Tony
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) Mactaggart, Fiona
Foulkes, George McWalter, Tony
Galloway, George McWilliam, John
Gardiner, Barry Mahon, Mrs Alice
Gerrard, Neil Mallaber, Judy
Gibson, Dr Ian Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Godsiff, Roger Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Goggins, Paul Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Golding, Mrs Llin Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Gordon, Mrs Eileen Martlew, Eric
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) Maxton, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Merron, Gillian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Grocott, Bruce Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Grogan, John Miller, Andrew
Hain, Peter Mitchell, Austin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Moran, Ms Margaret
Hanson, David Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Healey, John (Aberavon)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) Mudie, George
Hendrick, Mark Mullin, Chris
Hepburn, Stephen Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Heppell, John Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hesford, Stephen Norris, Dan
Hill, Keith O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hinchliffe, David O'Hara, Eddie
Hoey, Kate Olner, Bill
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey O'Neill, Martin
Hopkins, Kelvin Organ, Mrs Diana
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Palmer, Dr Nick
Howells, Dr Kim Pearson, Ian
Hoyle, Lindsay Perham, Ms Linda
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Pickthall, Colin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Pike, Peter L
Hutton, John Plaskitt, James
Iddon, Dr Brian Pollard, Kerry
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) Pound, Stephen
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Powell, Sir Raymond
Jamieson, David Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Johnson, Miss Melanie Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
(Welwyn Hatfield) Primarolo, Dawn
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Purchase, Ken
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) Rapson, Syd
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Raynsford, Nick
Keeble, Ms Sally Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) Robertson, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) (Glasgow Anniesland)
Kelly, Ms Ruth Rogers, Allan
Kemp, Fraser Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Ruane, Chris
Lammy, David Ruddock, Joan
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Laxton, Bob Salter, Martin
Lepper, David Savidge, Malcolm
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Sawford, Phil
Lewis, Terry (Worsley) Sedgemore, Brian
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen Shaw, Jonathan
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) Sheerman, Barry
Lock, David Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Love, Andrew Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McAvoy, Thomas Skinner, Dennis
McCabe, Steve Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Macdonald, Calum Smith, Miss Geraldine
McDonnell, John (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Snape, Peter Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Soley, Clive Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Spellar, John Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Squire, Ms Rachel Tynan, Bill
Steinberg, Gerry Vis, Dr Rudi
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Ward, Ms Claire
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Wareing, Robert N
Stinchcombe, Paul Watts, David
Stoate, Dr Howard White, Brian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin Wicks, Malcolm
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Stringer, Graham (Swansea W)
Stuart, Ms Gisela Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Sutcliffe, Gerry Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann Wills, Michael
(Dewsbury) Winnick, David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) Woodward, Shaun
Taylor, David (NW Leics) Woolas, Phil
Temple—Morris, Peter Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Tipping, Paddy Wyatt, Derek
Todd, Mark
Touhig, Don Tellers for the Ayes:
Trickett, Jon Mr. Greg Pope and
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) Mr. David Clelland.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Fallon, Michael
Allan, Richard Fearn, Ronnie
Amess, David Flight, Howard
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Foster, Don (Bath)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Fox, Dr Liam
Baker, Norman Fraser, Christopher
Baldry, Tony Garnier, Edward
Ballard, Jackie George, Andrew (St Ives)
Beggs, Roy Gibb, Nick
Beith, Rt Hon A J Gidley, Sandra
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Gill, Christopher
Bercow, John Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Beresford, Sir Paul Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Blunt, Crispin Gray, James
Body, Sir Richard Green, Damian
Boswell, Tim Greenway, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Grieve, Dominic
Brady, Graham Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Brand, Dr Peter Hammond, Philip
Brazier, Julian Hancock, Mike
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Harvey, Nick
Browning, Mrs Angela Hawkins, Nick
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Hayes, John
Burnett, John Heald, Oliver
Burns, Simon Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Burstow, Paul Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
(NE Fife) Horam, John
Cash, William Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
(Chipping Barnet) Hunter, Andrew
Clappison, James Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Collins, Tim Jenkin, Bernard
Cormack, Sir Patrick Johnson Smith,
Cotter, Brian Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cran, James Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Curry, Rt Hon David (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Key, Robert
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Day, Stephen Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Donaldson, Jeffrey Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Duncan, Alan Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Duncan Smith, Iain Lansley, Andrew
Evans, Nigel Leigh, Edward
Fabricant, Michael Letwin, Oliver
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) St Aubyn, Nick
Lidington, David Sanders, Adrian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Sayeed, Jonathan
Livsey, Richard Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Llwyd, Elfyn Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Loughton, Tim Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Spicer, Sir Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Spring, Richard
McIntosh, Miss Anne Steen, Anthony
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew Stunell, Andrew
Maclean, Rt Hon David Swayne, Desmond
McLoughlin, Patrick Syms, Robert
Major, Rt Hon John Tapsell, Sir Peter
Maples, John Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mates, Michael Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian Taylor, Sir Teddy
May, Mrs Theresa Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) Thompson, William
Moore, Michael Tonge, Dr Jenny
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) Townend, John
Moss, Malcolm Trend, Michael
Norman, Archie Tyler, Paul
Oaten, Mark Tyrie, Andrew
Walter, Robert
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) Waterson, Nigel
Öpik, Lembit Whitney, Sir Raymond
Ottaway, Richard Whittingdale, John
Page, Richard Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Pace, James Wilkinson, John
Pickles, Eric Willetts, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Willis, Phil
Prior, David Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Redwood, Rt Hon John Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Rendel, David Yeo, Tim
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) Tellers for the Noes:
Ruffley, David Mr. Peter Luff and
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply to the Homes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th January 2001: