Higher Education Bill
9:10 am
Mr Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Conservative)
I begin by joining the Minister in saying how much we look forward to proceedings under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and to what will be a lively set of debates. Both you and the Minister were right to note that the Committee might attract slightly more than the usual interest from the wider public in our parliamentary proceedings. That reflects the fact that the Government chose to make the Bill their flagship measure in the Queen's Speech. It was the first piece of legislation that Her Majesty mentioned and, as the Minister said, it caused great speculation outside the House about whether it would receive a Second Reading.
Our problem with the programme motion is that it does not reflect the importance of the Bill or the interest in it that exists outside the House. As an Opposition, we asked for the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House, but we were unable to persuade the Government to do that. We requested, following precedent on very controversial legislation, two days of debate on Second Reading, but we were unsuccessful in persuading the Government of that. We requested full and adequate time for debate in Committee, and our view continues to be that 12 sittings spread over only six days is inadequate. We have on many occasions established that we are not in favour in principle either of programme motions or of knives within them. They inevitably stifle debate and make it difficult to hold proper and full debates on
subjects that may not easily be foreseen as attracting many submissions from outside interest groups, and we are saddened by that situation.
I register our continuing concern and disappointment that the composition of the Committee does not, on the face of it, reflect properly the ruling of ''Erskine May''. The 1997 edition, page 693, states that
''the Committee will always ensure that standing committees reflect the party political composition of the House''.
I am sure that the Government would say that the Committee does so. ''Erskine May'' goes on to state that it should be ensured that
''in the case of bills which divide the House on cross-party lines''—
it is difficult to argue that this Bill is not such a Bill—
''the strength of opinion as expressed in any division at second reading is properly reflected''.
You will recollect that the majority on Second Reading for the Bill was only five, Mr. Gale. Pro rata, therefore, the Government should have a majority of only one on the Committee. Depending on how one defines the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who abstained on Second Reading, the Government have a majority of either four or five, which is four or five times greater than ''Erskine May'' states that they should have. I do not intend to prolong the point.