§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about Adjournment debates. Last night, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised an Adjournment debate. Unknown to the House, or at least to me, he was apparently permitted to change the subject of that debate during the recess. To the surprise of many of us who returned to the House yesterday and saw the Order Paper for the first time, the subject on it was entirely different from the subject that had been announced before the recess. That caused us grave inconvenience.
Being lucky enough to gain an Adjournment debate makes it a red letter day for anybody, and changing the subject should not, in my view, be permitted in any case. However, if in the wisdom of the Chair, it is thought right to permit such a change, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite wrong that that change should occur when the House is in recess, when no Order Papers are published. Many of us would have taken part in yesterday's debate if we had known that that subject was being discussed. However, our only warning was when we saw the subject matter printed on yesterday's Order Paper.
My point is that if an hon. Member is lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate he should stick to the subject. But, if it is felt right that the subject should be changed, that change should not take place when the House is in recess and hon. Members do not have an opportunity to receive daily parliamentary papers or to be kept posted of events.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Standing Orders that I have read, it is quite possible for an hon. Member to change the nature of an Adjournment debate —because after all, it is his debate, and is the result of the raffle system or of your selection, Mr. Speaker—or for the debate to be changed if the Member of Parliament is not available to take part in it, as happened just before the Easter recess.
I should also point out to you, Mr. Speaker—I am sure that you will be aware of it. — that the outside world would be kidded if it thought for a moment that when an Adjournment debate takes place between, as usually happens, one hon. Member and a Minister, the House is full to overflowing and people are hanging around just waiting, salivating, trying to make contributions. The plain fact is that that does not happen.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, I am not certain that we need it, but go on.
§ Mr. BruinvelsThank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I hope that you will need it. The change of subject in the Adjournment debate caused me considerable embarrassment. It was a subject of great importance to my constituency of Leicester, East and I would have liked to take part in it. I very much regret that no notice of the change was given.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for having given me notice of his point of order, as it enabled me to look into the matter. I shall not comment on what the hon. Member for Bolsover 893 (Mr. Skinner) has said other than to say that an Adjournment debate is a prized Back-Bench opportunity to raise a subject. I hope that it will never be downgraded.
I have looked into what happened on this occasion and I understand that the subject was changed before the House went into recess. I am satisfied that the change of subject was made in accordance with the rules, and that steps were taken to notify the Table Office and the Whips. However, I shall consider whether any change of practice is called for in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly if an alteration is made immediately before a recess.