Education Bill
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
There is a request for a Programming Sub-Committee, and I propose to suspend the Committee for a few minutes to allow that meeting to take place. All those who are not eligible to remain in the Room must withdraw.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—
Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)
I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee [11th December] relating to programming, as amended [13th and 18th December] be amended by substituting for the entries for the ninth and tenth sittings the following—
9thClauses 44 to 48, Schedule 4, 11.20 am
10thClauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5,
Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, 5 pm
Clauses 57 to 61
We want the guillotine to move from 11.25 am to 11.20 am, and to fall between schedule 4 and clause 49.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Government are trying to be as amenable as possible to the Opposition. The Minister was disappointed that we did not discuss all the clauses on Tuesday morning. We offered the Opposition an extra three hours to debate those items, if they would make up the time later in the evening. We did not disagree that the extra three hours would be useful, but we failed to get consensus because the Opposition decided that they would agree to the extra three hours only if we moved the middle knife. I conclude from that that they were happy to debate for another three hours, as long as we made no progress. That would seem to be illogical, except for the fact that I have a copy of a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Conservative party chairman, which spells out the tactic of—
Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)
I think when I have finished, Mr. Pike, you will see that it is relevant. It is important that we place on the record that Conservatives have adopted a tactic on Standing Committees of trying to take up extra time, while sending imperfectly scrutinised legislation to the House of Lords. [Interruption.] I am sorry but that tactic is outlined in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Order. We have a short amount of time. I have already ruled that this is not a point of order.
Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I seek your guidance on another matter. Is it helpful for the Government Whip, in expressing his one-sided view in a highly prejudiced and silly manner, to refer to the discussions of the usual channels, which are intended to facilitate our proceedings? He quoted from a letter that I certainly have not seen. It is not the custom of the House to remark on any leaked letter. The Opposition are seeking to scrutinise an important flagship Bill under a timetable imposed by a majority on the Floor of the House that cannot be second guessed between elections. We are faced with an attempt to truncate discussions. Progress was certainly made at the last sitting, and it is completely tendentious of the Government Whip to suggest that there was any dragging out of proceedings. No tactic is being deployed in Committee that would even remotely equate to what he has suggested. The Opposition are making a genuine attempt to scrutinise the legislation properly.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
We have spent enough time on this matter. While I understand the points that have been made, I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and I am committed to the agreed programming system, and I am sure that those arguments will be debated again when we come to decide whether the procedures, which are still experimental, should be made permanent. It would more appropriate to debate those points then.Clause 44 Admission forums