Sittings of the House (Hansard, 19 May 1994)

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

I shall now make my points to the correct motion. The motion seems to be more important than the one that I covered previously, although there were matters that needed prodding. The second part of the motion says:

1020 the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business," statements, I presume that that day will be divided into a series of 45-minute Adjournment debates. It is normally the case that an Adjournment debate starts at 11 am or just before. That time is also the normal time for points of order to be raised and for a statement, if required, to take place. I know that it is unlikely that we shall have statements and points of order running one after the other, but someone could be unfortunate in terms of his or her Adjournment debate. I declare an interest because I, among many others, have put in my name for such a debate. If there are statements or points of order, will time be equitably chopped off other Adjournment debates?

It is unlikely that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will complete its remaining stages. I raised the point in business questions and referred to the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) at the end of April. I felt that if the House had expressed a view, the Leader of the House should take that view seriously and should make arrangements so that there was an opportunity to discuss the Bill. If the Bill does not complete its remaining stages by 26 May, there will be an end of any feasible opportunity to pursue it.

I was unhappy with the response from the Leader of the House. He said that the House had only expressed an opinion. I believe that the opinion of the House of Commons, which was expressed not glibly—it was not a matter of only two or three people being around and someone not noticing the procedures—but clearly and firmly, with strong feelings involved, should be taken on board.

The Government seem to be maintaining their opinion that the principles of the Bill are okay, but the details create many difficulties. Some of us do not believe that. We should be given the opportunity to go through the Bill properly and the Government would then have to vote against it and face the flak. The opinion of the House is that we should like the Bill to be given the opportunity to complete its remaining stages. I hope that even at this late stage—there is still time for further statements by the Leader of the House—that opportunity will be given to us.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I shall respond first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about proceedings on Thursday, 26 May. The matters that he has raised are, strictly, matters for the Chair. It is for Madam Speaker to choose how to organise the debates on such a day. In my experience, she normally takes into account the possibility that there could be an interruption of business at 11 am. It is for precisely that reason that a number of debates are scheduled to last three quarters of an hour rather than half an hour. There is scope to adjust without anyone being squeezed out if there is an interruption of business. It is not for me to say how Madam Speaker will choose to arrange business today week, but I venture the thought that she will certainly take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said in making her decisions on that occasion.

It is no part of my purpose to prevent the hon. Gentleman from having an Adjournment debate that day if he is so fortunate—tiresome as it may be, knowing the hon.

1021 Gentleman, when we discover the subject that he wishes to raise. I should be the last person to wish to deprive him of the opportunity to be tiresome.

Although I well understand why the hon. Gentleman raised his latter point, I cannot add sensibly to what I said, which he has reasonably accurately reported, in my exchange with him this afternoon in business questions. The only thing that I will say is that I do not believe, and I would not expect Hansard to show, that I said "only" the opinion of the House. I merely made the factual point that the motion was framed as, and undoubtedly has the effect of, an expression of opinion by the House. I do not mean in any way to demean or diminish the motion by making that point, but it needs to be taken into account. The motion cannot change the Sessional Order—this is the point I made this afternoon—that the House has passed, which governs the amount of time available for private Members' Bills.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of Government time being given. On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government think that the right way now in which to proceed is for them to introduce proposals for consultation with a view to assisting in the drafting of legislation that they feel would achieve workable and practical progress in the cause of advancing the rights of disabled people. That is the right way in which to proceed.