Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I shall now respond to Mr. O'Brien's point of order. I cannot adjourn the Committee until the question has been agreed to. When the motion is moved in the afternoon sitting, it is debatable and can be voted on.

Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Both Opposition spokespersons received a letter telling them of the intention to run late tonight. I know that the Conservative Whip has his letter, as I have seen him put it in his file. They should not pretend that they did not know about it.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr Pike. I have received no letter from either the Government Whip or a Government Minister in that regard. I am not prepared to hear it suggested that I have. I have received no such letter. The hon. Gentleman said that he had written to me.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Government Whip seeks to place on the record an impression that is simply not true. I received a letter yesterday, and I daresay that the Liberal Democrat spokesman or Whip received something similar. It should be stated that it did not confirm the intention to go on past 7 pm. After receiving the letter, I instigated a telephone conversation in which I made it perfectly clear that the official Opposition declined the proposal, because the Government Whip would not consider or make any effort to meet our concerns. Normally, a deal requires interest by both parties in removing or shifting the knives. The knives are causing distortion in the debate, and are preventing us from holding the Government to account for a Bill that they seek to put through the Committee with the claim that it has had democratic scrutiny. On that basis, it is a failure of the process.

Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. My recollection of the telephone conversation is different. The Government will move the knives if the Opposition indicate either where we will get to in our

consideration of the amendments or the amount of extra time by which they are prepared to extend the sitting. If they are prepared to sit for another three hours, we will move the knives three hours.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. I cannot continue to accept points of order. I indicated that the Chair cannot rule on the matter. I suspect that the Government wish to take some of next Tuesday's business to ease next Tuesday. It is not for me to express a view on whether that is appropriate. Debate a motion to adjourn the sitting if you wish, but do not continue to raise points of order on which the Chairman is not in a position to give an answer.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I will accept it only if it really is a point of order, Mr. Turner. The Committee can debate a motion to adjourn and can vote on it.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

I apologise to you, Mr. Pike, and to the Government Whip. I have only now received the letter. It states clearly that the Government Whip is thinking about taking such action; it certainly does not say that he intends to.

This is a serious issue. The Ministers and the Government Whip think that the Opposition are procrastinating over the legislation. We are not. People other than members of the Committee are interested in the Bill. I urge the Minister to think carefully about what I am about to say. The part of the Bill that we shall deal with next is of crucial significance, particularly to the quarter of a million teachers who expect the Bill to be properly debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I have put down a series of amendments that resulted from discussions with teachers' organisations about their major concerns. We understood that the timetable to which the Committee agreed would have a knife on Thursday that would begin at clause 115 and go up to clause 144. That is what people who are coming to listen to the debates are interested in.Indeed, that was the assumption when teachers' associations approached us to table amendments to be debated on Thursday.

I accept that the Government have a right to say that we must get to clause 144 by the end of Thursday--I do not like it and accept it reluctantly--but it would be a travesty to bring forward Thursday's business to this evening. It would be absolutely disgraceful. I am sure that the Minister, on reflection, would not wish to deal with such an important issue in such a cavalier way, and I urge the Committee to agree to the Adjournment.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

I am appalled at the Government's demonstration of bad faith. In our deliberations to date we have had a number of disagreements about the

timetable that has been applied to these proceedings. We have had a particular disagreement over the Government Whip's attempts to place a so-called knife in the proceedings so as to constrain debate of those aspects of the Bill on which Opposition Members wish to focus. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough says, we have had no choice but to accept that the Government have used their majority to force the Committee to follow a certain timetable, irrespective of our wishes and without any consensus.

In the Committee's proceedings so far, the Government have held to their timetable. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has said, Opposition Members and outside bodies and organisations have also been aware of that timetable and have relied on it. One of the consequences of the Government forcing through an extremely tight timetabling motion has been that it has placed pressure on the Opposition parties, which do not have the benefit of a large number of officials to assist and advise them in the process of the Bill. It has also placed considerable pressure on outside organisations that have been struggling to follow the process of the Bill, to draft and promulgate amendments and to brief members of the Committee.

It is nothing short of bad faith for the Government Whip to try to end that practice without notice. It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to seek to prevent proper debate and scrutiny by imposing time constraints, and now we have the ultimate abuse of the Government trying to manipulate the timetable so as to prevent members of the Committee from tabling amendments. It is a gross abuse. I hope that the Minister will accept that that is an affront not only to democracy and the procedures of the House, but to outside bodies and organisations that rely on the Committee to provide proper scrutiny of the Bill. Having had a chance to consider the situation that has arisen, I hope that the Minister will now recognise that it would be appropriate to allow a sensible interval to enable amendments to be tabled and proper scrutiny and debate to continue.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

I want to resist the aspersions cast by the hon. Gentleman as they are unhelpful. I say to him and to the whole Committee that there is a genuine problem. It has been clear on a number of occasions that Opposition Members have wanted additional time to carry out a thorough scrutiny of the Bill. That has been repeatedly offered and resisted. With the best of intentions, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East thought that it would be helpful—we discussed this—if we were to get ahead of the knives with a discussion this evening of the clauses from clause 115 onwards. That was certainly not done with any intention to restrict hon. Members' ability to make points in the debate or to table additional amendments. Some amendments to clause 121 have already been tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

No, I will not. We have absolutely no intention of restricting debate, quite the opposite. We want to ensure that members of the Committee have the time that they clearly want to consider these matters fully and carefully. That is the intention behind the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has made. My hon. Friend wants to make a further suggestion, given the concerns now being expressed. It is very important to make it clear on the record that the motivation behind these proposals is to give additional time. There has been frustration on our part that those offers have been resisted up until now. My hon. Friend has made a helpful suggestion, and I think he will want to make a further point on it in a moment.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

The offer that was made yesterday took place after the deadline for the tabling of amendments for discussion today. Therefore, it would be impossible for hon. Members to adapt their plans to debate issues tonight.

Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)

Opposition Members should have tabled amendments already.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

One of the things that I have learnt from sitting on this Committee, which is only my third Committee, is that it makes sense to table some amendments in the expectation that they will be debated. It also makes sense not to table other amendments, because that is a waste of time not only for me, but for officials who presumably have to prepare briefings for every single amendment whether or not it is likely to be debated, just in case we should miraculously reach it. Perhaps I am doing them a disservice. It seems to me that it is appropriate, and the most sensible way of conducting ourselves, to put down amendments reasonably late but obviously in time to ensure that they are debated.

Members of the public have come to me or written to me and asked me to consider tabling amendments. I have taken on some of their proposals for earlier clauses, and for clauses that I expected to be debated later in the Bill. That is why some amendments are put down late, but still in time to be selected. I hope that in his response, the Minister will understand that that is the situation that people outside this Committee face.

Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)

The problem tends to repeat itself. We make an offer of more time, it is not taken up, and a day later the Opposition complain that they have not had enough time.

I know that there are concerns about the knives, but I will make the offer again, so that it is on the record and so that everyone can hear what I am saying. Whenever the Opposition agree to do any extra time, we will be happy to move the knives for whatever amount of time they require. That offer has never been

taken up in the past, on any occasion. I can see that the proposal to continue this evening is causing difficulty—although not for me, I might add.

The Government's timetable does not require us to finish at seven o'clock. It states that we start at half-past four on Tuesdays and at half-past two on Thursdays. [Interruption]. I see that you are nodding, Mr Pike. It is normal in Committees for knives to fall when votes will be made. There is nothing wrong with getting ahead of schedule instead of being behind schedule, which seems to be the Opposition's aim. The timetable does not say that we finish any night at seven. I thought that hon. Members understood that. We have already worked two nights after seven o'clock. [Interruption] Yes, I know, I am coming to the rest.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on one point.

If the hon. Gentleman had argued that he did not have time to table amendments before Christmas, I might have agreed with him. However, we are half way through January, and he should have recognised that there was a chance that we might reach this point. It is not the Government's job to second guess the incompetence of Opposition Members who fail to table amendments when they should.

I recognise that there has been a misunderstanding, although I know that the Opposition Whip received my letter, and that he understood my intentions, because we had harsh words last night, when I said that we were going to ensure that there was extra time, regardless of whether he wanted it. I took that view because I was sick of Opposition Members constantly carping that they did not have sufficient time to consider matters, even though whenever I offered them time, they refused it. Having said that, I respect the fact that the letters were placed on the board when it was late, and that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough did not receive the letter. As he has tabled amendments, it would be unfair of me to insist that we continue tonight.

I am glad that we have had this debate because it has given us a chance to clear the air. I say again that if the Opposition want to change the knives, that is not a problem, as long as they offer time in exchange, or tell us which point the Committee would reach.

Everything that needs to be said about the matter has been said. I support the Adjournment motion of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

I wish to clarify a few of the perceptions that have been generated by what seems to be a particularly narrow—or blinkered, even—view of what might be the normal expectation of what can be achieved by dialogue or by a deal between parties that are seeking to make our democratic proceedings work.

I hope that the Liberal Democrats agree that, for the Opposition, a principle is at stake. There was recognition at the outset that, whatever the merits of

the Programming Sub-Committee, 24 January was always going to be a tight date to set for the end of our consideration in Committee. Many issues were raised with the Chairman at the time, and the anticipated difficulties have, by and large, occurred. I am being up front about that.

For example, this afternoon we have covered no fewer than 43 clauses. We have managed to cover that ground within the time that was granted for this sitting, about which there was no dispute. The difficulty is not the extra time. We accept that there has been extra time in Committee. There is no unwillingness about that. On the contrary, there is a deep willingness on the part of the official Opposition—and, I think, of the Liberal Democrats—to have more time.

The distortion within our debates has been caused by the knives. That is the controlling mechanism that—along with the extraordinary approach of the Government Whip—is distorting the Opposition's ability to do their duty and to choose what they believe to be the areas that need to be subjected to the most debate and scrutiny.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is right that the Government Whip has taken this action on the basis that it would be wrong if there were not to be an opportunity to debate amendments that have been tabled in good faith by members of the Committee? I believe that my hon. Friend has taken the right and honourable course of action.

We have talked about scrutiny, but does the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) accept that the Opposition have been offered—by my reckoning—an additional nine to 12 hours during the course of the Committee's deliberations, and that if they had not declined those offers, we would have been able to scrutinise far more clauses than we have to date?

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

It is clear that the Minister has—possibly deliberately—failed to understand that it is the operation of the knives that causes the distortion. It is simply ridiculous for the Minister to suggest that we forget the knives. The knives are the operable part of the Government, and they are not in the gift of Opposition Members.

I am sure that you, Mr. Pike, as the safeguarder of Back Benchers' rights, would be the first to support us in doing our job. The Opposition should table amendments either to improve the Bill or to probe the Government's thinking. The Bill must be scrutinised and we should debate whether clauses should stand part. It is difficult to hold discussions with a Government who are intent on simply holding to a timetable with knives that may mean that we do not cover the areas that we believe require scrutiny and time.

Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way and I shall make a further undertaking?

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I want to say that we are often assured that the knives will be considered, provided that we promise to reach a certain point. I must make the point

that it is completely outside my gift or power to say that I can deliver the Liberal Democrats, and I should be appalled if the Liberal Democrats said that they could deliver us. We are independent parties, as well as independent Members of Parliament. We would expect to have to agree to reach the end of a clause, but it is possible that at the point at which a knife falls we may not believe that there is a point of contention, whereas the Liberal Democrats might believe that there is. That is perfectly legitimate.

Mr John Heppell (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Nottingham East, Labour)

Let us accept for the moment that the knives are staying. Even with the knives, the entire Bill must be considered. We may not want to consider some parts as thoroughly as others. However, wherever the knives fall, while we are working and have extra time, we shall be considering something, and that will allow extra time at the end for the matters on which hon. Members have complained that the knives have fallen.

I give the further undertaking that, as I have said before, I will not merely move a knife. I shall move whatever knife the hon. Members for Eddisbury or for Altrincham and Sale, West want, as long as I have a guarantee that I shall have that extra hour. [Interruption.] All that I am asking is for hon. Members to agree to do an extra hour and a half on a Tuesday night, and I shall move by an hour and a half whatever knife hon. Members want to be moved.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

I recognise that that was intended to be an intervention. A difficulty between the Members and parties represented on the Committee and a rather unhappy series of tense relationships relating to what we all believe to be our duty and job in relation to the Bill seems to have arisen. There is an apparent mindset among the Government, or part of the Government, that the motivations and intentions of those who represent Opposition parties are not genuine or in good faith and that an attempt is being made to filibuster or procrastinate, which the evidence does not support.

The next point is allied and simple. The Government Whip suggests that amendments to all clauses should have been tabled before Christmas. However, to some extent, issues arise during the course of debate. I fully accept that the parts of the Bill are to some extent discrete. However, the Minister has said that there is a theme or linkage in the Bill. When we debate one part, it can affect another. There is therefore a need for reflection. Furthermore, it so happens that in those happy days when the Labour party was in opposition, it tended to table a great raft of amendments right up to the procedural deadlines specified in Standing Orders of the House.

It is completely tendentious of the Government Whip to suggest that somehow we should have been sufficiently prescient, or, indeed, had sufficient resources, without the back-up of the civil service, when one might be able to get some allocation of

resources—[Interruption.] It is perfectly proper and right for Opposition Members and, indeed, Labour Back Benchers to table amendments right up to the deadline.

It is wrong for any Government Member to suggest that it is out of order or unhelpful not to focus on amendments for clauses that are being anticipated according to a timetable that has been set out way in advance, without any consideration of the true merits of the various aspects of the Bill that the Opposition believe should be debated. It might have been reasonably helpful to have had this airing, but the Government should recognise that the knives are the distortion. If the Government want to give as much time as they like and remove the knives, we are willing to sit.

Mr. Willis rose—

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. Before I call Mr. Willis, I should say that I would hope that some of the matters that have been raised in the past few minutes could be sorted out informally in the usual way outside the Room. When I served on Committees, it was normal for us to sit until, perhaps 3 am, or even 9 am the following day. We used to think that we were lucky if we finished at 10 pm on a Thursday night. Committee members should know that the relevant Standing Orders have not been changed. They provide that the afternoon sitting can continue until the Adjournment motion has been moved and agreed. I will not be here on Thursday this week, but I will be back next week. I hope that Committee members now understand. It is not for me to judge the rights and wrongs of what is debated.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

We have now spent 32 minutes on this.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

I am slightly anxious that, in the heat of the debate, we might have lost the point. There is a pile of letters on the Committee Table, and I hope that hon. Members will each take their copy away with them.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful that the Government Whip has supported what is a reasonable case. We are reaching some important clauses, especially clauses 115 to 144, and I hope that he will agree to remove the knife at the end or our morning sitting on Thursday and run through to clause 144 by the end of play. That would mean that we could deal with the difficult issues of teaching, given the assurance, which I believe that I have, that we will reach clause 144 by the end of play on Thursday.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. There needs to be discussion on whether that is permissible for Thursday. A Standing Order provides that Committees should not sit when Question Time is taking place in the House, and that must be taken into account. I do not know the

rules exactly, and Committee members would have to check them before running straight through. There are rules, and that is one of the reasons why we brought the Thursday sittings forward.

Mr. Willis: I commend the Adjournment motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock, till Thursday 17 January at half-past Nine o'clock. The following members attended the Committee: