Higher Education Bill
9:10 am
Mr Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Conservative)
It goes without saying that Her Majesty's Opposition look forward to the opportunity to debate this important matter further; indeed, we look forward to debating it under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and that of your co-Chairman, Mr. Hood.
The official Opposition originally took the view that it was sensible to have at least 16 sittings or the equivalent, so we are delighted that the recommendations of the Programming Sub-Committee will result in the equivalent of 16 sittings—
or not much short of it. However, it is worth noting why it was found necessary to extend our deliberations.
We had a lengthy debate, but appropriately so, on the first group of amendments to clause 23, during which pretty much every member of the Committee spoke, and all views were expressed. Not only the views of the four political parties were fully aired, but those of at least three different factions in the governing party. It was therefore entirely appropriate that we should have spent some time debating those amendments. However, it is important to ensure that the time for subsequent debates is properly preserved.
As a result of the Programming Sub-Committee's recommendations, we will have a degree of extra time, but we will still be constrained by the imposition of knives at various points. You, Mr. Gale, will be familiar with the fact, as will other members of the Committee, that the official Opposition do not support the principle of knives being artificially imposed on debates. Clearly, there must be an end to our deliberations, but it seems unfortunate that some debates may be truncated in order to fulfil a still restrictive timetable.
Even with the additional time provided by the programme motion, we are concerned that we may end up with further clauses and schedules being entirely undebated. It is a matter of record that that occurred earlier in our deliberations, and it would be regrettable if it were to happen again. The Opposition will certainly do their best to ensure proper debate and deliberation of those clauses that we are able to debate, and that we make sufficient progress to debate some of the other clauses and schedules. However, I fear that even on the revised timetable it is highly likely that a number of clauses, and possibly some schedules, may pass out of the deliberative eye of the Committee after little or no debate. That is particularly regrettable as I imagine that our common cause, in Committee and outside it, is that the Bill is more significant, more important and more controversial than most.
There is an abnormal amount of interest in the discussions and deliberations on these matters and, as the Minister has been candid in admitting, a number of elements of the policy embodied in the Bill were in flux, to put it delicately, as recently as four or five weeks ago. It seems to me that, particularly because of those factors, there is a danger that without adequate deliberation and discussion we may end up placing legislation on the statute book that is in some ways defective.
It would be particularly regrettable if the lack of time provided for deliberation in Committee meant that the Government ended up having to bring forward a number of amendments when the Bill was considered in another place. That has occurred very often since 1997 and may well occur again.
As a result of the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee, we are certainly likely—as previously we were unlikely—to be able to deliberate on the Government amendments to clause 24. I welcome that, because there was a severe danger that those would have passed through Committee without any
discussion or debate whatever. However, it remains possible that further Government amendments may prove necessary, either during the remaining stages of consideration in this place or during consideration in another place. The whole point of the Committee system in the House of Commons is that it allows much more detailed consideration than any other stage of the parliamentary proceedings—certainly so far as this part of the Palace of Westminster is concerned.
Would the Minister be prepared to undertake—either later in the debate, later in our deliberations or in writing as appropriate—that, should we prove again to run out of time during the course of our deliberations, the Government will be prepared to come back for a further allocation of time? Secondly, given that by their own admission they effectively underestimated the amount of time required for the Committee stage by about 50 per cent., will the Minister undertake that we will have at least two days to debate these matters on Report?
I cannot think of a Bill that has been discussed in Parliament in the past two or three years that is of greater significance than this one, or that meets all the criteria fulfilled by it. It was the flagship Bill of the Queen's Speech, because it was the first one mentioned, and the Prime Minister has personally and publicly attached his future to it. It has seen the largest rebellion on Second Reading faced by any Government in half a century, it has produced demonstrations in the streets and it involves the most significant aspects of the future education and economic performance of our nation. If ever there were a case for the allocation of too much time in Committee and for deliberation on the Floor of the House, this surely is it.
I implore the Minister to go away and discuss the matter. In an interesting exchange at the end of our sitting last Thursday—I forget whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Gale, but I am sure that you will have studied Hansard—we learned from the Minister that there had been discussions about the handling of the Bill that involved the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), about which the Minister had not previously known. There may be discussions about the timetabling of the Bill to which the Minister may not be privy, and we look for guidance from any Government Member who may have had a quiet word with the Prime Minister. However, if we assume—accurately or inaccurately—that the Minister is more in charge of the timetable than anybody else, we look to his good will and good offices to ensure that, were he to decide that there was not enough time in the motion, he would come back to the matter.