Health Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

House of Commons, 14 February 2006.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I beg to move,

That the Order of 29th November 2005 (Health Bill (Programme)) 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.

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

Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings

New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 and to the age for sale of tobacco, and amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 12 and Schedules 1 and 2. | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

Remaining proceedings on consideration. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.

I am delighted that we have reached the Health Bill's final stages in this place. The Bill had 12 constructive sessions in Committee, just over six of which were devoted to the smoke-free provisions, with the remaining time spent discussing other important parts of the Bill. With no programming at all, I was delighted that the Committee managed to discuss all the Bill's main provisions. I was even more pleased that there were only two Divisions during Committee, a reflection of the fact that this is a very good Bill indeed.

As time is more precious on Report, we decided to programme the proceedings, but only lightly. Although the smoke-free provisions are clearly an important part of the Bill, and have generated much interest, the measure contains many other significant provisions. Few amendments have been tabled in relation to other parts of the Bill, but there are amendments on the important provisions on infection control in part 2, and it is right that they should receive a hearing. We have thus proposed a generous three hours in which to conclude our discussions on the first two groups of amendments, which relate to smoking, after which we shall move through the remaining amendments. That is a sensible allocation of time and I hope that Opposition parties will not delay the start of what promises to be a lively debate.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

As time discussing the programme motion is time taken from the substantive issue, I shall not detain the House. However, I want to make one point.

In the three hours available, we are discussing two groups of amendments—those relating to the smoking ban and the completely separate provisions about the position of 16 to 18-year olds. As the first group is obviously contentious, with a wide range of related issues, it seems extremely likely that the whole three hours will be taken up by discussion of the smoking ban, which means that the provisions on 16 to 18-year-olds will not be debated at all, although I am aware that there was a short debate in Committee. Furthermore, as there is a Government new clause it will be voted on, even though it will not have been debated.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that even if we do not debate the new clause she will force a vote on it? She is nodding, so she must be happy for us to change the position for 16 to 18-year olds without debate in the House. It will thus seem that not enough time was available, but in fact the Government could have given us more than one day on Report. The Pensions Bill had three days on Report. If these important issues cannot be properly debated because there is not enough time this afternoon, the Government should allocate extra time and not make a quite major change without any debate. For that reason, I regard the programme motion as unsatisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.