I beg to move,

That the Order of 1 April (Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 pm at this day's sitting.

The motion is fairly straightforward, but for the sake of clarity I might just explain one bit to the House. Paragraph 1 of the motion says that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the programme order of 1 April relating to the Bill shall be omitted. Hon. Members might not know what paragraphs 3 and 4 were; they might think that there is some dastardly plot afoot and that we are somehow seeking to undermine the House. The truth of the matter is that paragraph 3 was as follows:

"Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption", and paragraph 4 said:

"Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption."

If the programme motion is carried by the House, we should finish by 4 o'clock. That will protect the minority parties' Opposition half-day debate, which we will enjoy later this afternoon. Obviously, we wish to protect that. We therefore will not proceed with our discussions on the Bill until the moment of interruption. It is important that the two paragraphs from the original programme motion be struck down; otherwise, the House would be disagreeing with itself, and we all know that a

"house divided against itself shall not stand".

Without further ado, I commend the programme motion.

I welcome Chris Bryant to the Dispatch Box on his first outing as a Foreign Office Minister; it is good to see him in that post. I should like to place it on record that I have always appreciated the good humour and courtesy shown by Gillian Merron during her time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I particularly appreciated the way in which she dealt with the Opposition parties on the earlier stages of the Bill.

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed that the Minister has to defend a programme motion on his first such outing. We have, after all, been hearing incessantly over the past 48 hours about how the Government have changed, how they will listen, how they wish to consult, and how they will now try to make Parliament stronger in its ability to hold the Executive to account, yet we are faced with a programme motion on which, as I understand it, there has not been prior consultation with the Opposition parties. As the Minister well knows, the Bill is not the subject of party political contention, but Members have sought to raise legitimate questions about it. However, it is not a measure on which there will be a major partisan battle. I would have thought that, as an emblem of the promised change of heart to which the Prime Minister has said that he is fervently committed, we could have had, in place of a programme motion, a consultation between the representatives of the different political parties. I would have thought that we could have agreed on a sensible way to handle the further stages of the Bill and proceeded on that basis.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Procedure Committee is undertaking a report on timetabling. I wonder whether he will join his party in the views that it expresses in its evidence to the report—I suspect that that evidence will not say that timetabling should come to an end—or whether he will provide his own evidence to say that there should be no timetabling. My view is that there should perhaps be areas where we do not need to timetable. It was necessary to do so today purely and simply because we want to ensure that we protect the half-day debate for the minority parties. It is important that we protect that.

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to try to second-guess my hon. Friend Alan Duncan and my right hon. Friend Mr. McLoughlin, the shadow Chief Whip, which I shall not do. My view on timetabling and programming is that if it is to work and to be seen as the expression of the House's decision on the priority that should be accorded to different pieces of legislation and to different stages of any one piece of legislation, it is important that discussions about programming and timetabling take place well in advance between the representatives of the different political parties represented in the House. A timetable should not be presented by the Government of the day as a fait accompli that everyone else is expected to swallow without dispute.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, we dealt with quite a lot of legislation that contained controversial and contentious points, but which did not involve matters of great dispute between the Government and Opposition, although the issues were important and contentious within Northern Ireland. We were sometimes able to agree to let a debate take place without the imposition of arbitrary guillotines or knives, and to find a way for Parliament, and particularly Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, to express their points of view and represent the interests of their constituents, and yet for that business to be handled within a sensible and timely framework of debate.

I am disappointed in the Government's attitude this afternoon. Unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise, I am minded to challenge the programme motion in the Division Lobby.

Following our exchanges in the European Committee yesterday and in the Committee Corridor, I want to take the opportunity on the Floor of the House to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Chris Bryant, to his job.

I echo the sentiments of Mr. Lidington regarding the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister of State, Department of Health, Gillian Merron, who built consultation into her approach to the job as Minister and was forthcoming with information on the Bill in its early stages. That is to be welcomed generally in Government, and most particularly on a Bill such as this, on which there is a certain degree of consensus and not much controversy. That cannot be said for many debates in the House at this time.

To my knowledge, it is true that there was no prior consultation about the programme motion. It was helpful that the Minister read out paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original order. When I looked at the motion, I suddenly thought, "Oh my goodness, what are the paragraphs that will be omitted?" I found the relevant piece of paper from 1 April and realised that these were not horrendous omissions, but were designed merely to protect the later debate, which I am sure that, as the Minister said, we will all enjoy. The changes were well intentioned and sought to ensure that the time of Opposition parties was protected.

There is only one further comment that I would make. I am not sure whether this is in the Minister's gift, but perhaps he might be able to speak to his former colleagues in the Department of the Leader of the House, as it might have been helpful if the original paragraphs had been printed on the Order Paper. That would have made it simpler for hon. Members to see at a glance that there was no sinister attempt to stop debate on the Bill, and that the changes made sense. Although I accept the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury about lack of consultation on the programming, the motion makes sense and I am minded to support the Government.

With the leave of the House, let me say that I am grateful to both Jo Swinson and Mr. Lidington for reiterating the pleasant comments that they made yesterday in Committee. I wholly concur with them in everything they said about the now Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend Gillian Merron; I know from the private office that I have inherited that she is held in very high esteem by many hon. Members across the House in respect of the way that she conducts her business and the acuity with which she has approached many issues on which there is a wide divergence of views. I think of her as a close personal friend as well, so it is a great honour to be able to follow in her—I about to say shoes, but I do not know that I can quite wear her shoes. [Interruption.] The Conservative Deputy Chief Whip (paid) is trying to entice me into high heels. [Interruption.] I am paid almost as much as he is. He knows that I reserve that for special occasions with him.

I know that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is a choral singer, and I hope he will be singing in tune with us this afternoon. He spoke about prior consultation. I am sure he is fully aware that there has been prior consultation about the amount of time allocated. One of the things that I discovered when I was Deputy Leader of the House was that sometimes the prior consultations that happen through the usual channels are completely disowned, as though they had never happened. Despite all those shaking heads, I am sure there was some kind of consultation. I want to make sure that—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall finish this point, lest I have to start being rude to her. I want to make sure that where we can proceed in unity in the House, we do so. There is no point in trying to score partisan points just for the sake of it, but I reserve my position on that for the hon. Lady.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I know that in his previous job, he was keen to modernise the House. Do not his comments about the usual channels and about whether messages get through signal the need for a shake-up of the usual channels and more transparency in how all these things to do with programming and timing are decided?

The hon. Lady makes a decent point about the openness and transparency with which we do our business. That is a matter for the whole House, not just for the Government. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and others want to take forward some of that agenda. I know also that Members of the hon. Lady's party and others want to pursue the question whether there should be a business committee, but that is not the business of the motion.

I want to raise two other points in response to the hon. Lady's comments. First, on whether the previous motion should appear on the Order Paper, I am more than happy to make sure that my successor as Deputy Leader of the House, who is also a close friend, knows of her comments. Such an arrangement would fit well with our efforts to make sure that all Ministers answer questions not just by referring to a previous answer, but by providing the information again. It is for the convenience of everybody in the House.

The Minister is right to say that, as my hon. Friend Mr. Lidington suggested from the Front Bench, this is not a partisan matter, but the hon. Gentleman will have noted that when we last debated the subject on the Floor of the House, there was a great deal of interest on the part of hon. Members. The matter was debated at some length and in some detail. It requires full exploration, even though it is not partisan. Is the general principle that when a measure is not partisan, it should not be explored fully?

Obviously, I have read Hansard for the previous debate in the House and the debates in the other House, and I note the comments that were made by many Members. I notice, too, that there seemed to be a growing interest in the debates. It grew as the debates progressed, and I note that that may be happening this afternoon as well. None the less, we said that we would make sure that we had a half-day available for the second debate this afternoon, and there is a great deal of interest among some Members in that debate, so we wanted to make sure that it was protected.

The second point that I wanted to make was that when officials refer to a piece of legislation as uncontroversial—I have been told about 20 times in the past 24 hours that something is not controversial—my experience is that it often encourages people none the less to expatiate. That may happen later. It is important that we ensure that even on non-controversial legislation, where there is no partisan difference, there is a time lag between Second Reading, Committee and Report, so that Members can table amendments as a result of the debate.

As Mr. Hayes knows, no amendments have been tabled for today, so I hope the views about non-controversiality that were expressed to me were correct. However, it is important to acknowledge that we have made sure that there is a gap between the two stages, and that the Bill, which is important though not controversial, as the hon. Gentleman said, gets proper scrutiny.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 157.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order of 1 April (Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 pm at this day's sitting.