Consideration (Hansard, 11 March 2002)

§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)
I hear what the Minister has to say, and agree with most of it. The fact is that there has been a very full discussion of the Bill in the other place. It has undergone about five separate procedural stages, so many of these matters have been discussed exhaustively. However, a number of important matters were discussed at length in Committee in this House, and every member of that Committee concluded that we had had a good Committee stage on this fairly esoteric subject. Labour Back Benchers made some extremely coherent arguments, as did Opposition Members, and some of my hon. Friends made some notable speeches. As a result, we eventually managed to create a climate in which the Government were prepared to consider making a number of important amendments and, in certain respects, to break new ground. Those amendments may not go as far as we should like, as we shall no doubt find as we proceed on Report.
Some important changes are proposed in relation to forfeiture, which we shall discuss on Wednesday. That issue has been embedded in the law of property since well before 1925—in fact, from the middle ages onwards. We may not agree with every aspect of what is proposed, but, by the same token, real progress is being made, so I am glad to be able to say that we do not want to delay matters on Report by dividing the House on the programme motion.
In my view, two days will be sufficient to deal with these matters, but I hope that there will be vigorous debate because we are not content with all the Government's proposals. Indeed, we have tabled our own amendments, which we intend to pursue vigorously, especially on unanimity with regard to commonhold and on forfeiture. The Opposition believe that the programme motion should be agreed to without Division.

§ Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)
It is logical to consider the Bill on two days and to have a break between them, but I hope that there will be flexibility if it looks as though we might go over a time barrier on one or two issues. The reason, ably set out by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is that there are some contentious issues. We have a contribution to make on forfeiture and are particularly interested in marriage value. Although I do not expect that our amendments and new clauses will take an inordinate amount of time to debate, I hope that there will be time to put them to bed.

§ Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster)
Given the prevailing climate, in which statements are sprung upon us, may I urge the Minister to persuade his colleagues not to make statements before the Bill's proceedings on Wednesday?

Table
Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First allotted day
New Clauses relating to Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 and 4, Schedule 2, Clauses 5 to 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 to 58, Schedule 4, Clauses 59 to 68, Schedule 5, Clauses 69 and 70, new Schedules relating to Part 1.	7 p.m.
Remaining new Clauses (other than Government new Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other new Clauses relating to forfeiture of leases).	10 p.m.
Second allotted day
Amendments relating to Clauses 71 and 72, Schedule 6, Clauses 73 to 102, Schedule 7, Clauses 103 to 123, Schedule 8, Clauses 124 to 149, Schedule 9, Clauses 150 to 155, Schedule 10, Clause 156, Schedule 11, Clauses 157 to 162, Government new Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other new Clauses relating to forfeiture of leases, amendments relating to Clauses 163 to 168, Schedule 12, Clauses 16 and 170, Schedule 13, Clauses 171 to 174, Schedule 14, Clauses 175 to 177, remaining new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration.	9 p.m.