Health Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

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.