Standing Committee (Hansard, 16 January 2001)

§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
I note the date on which proceedings in the Committee must finish. When does the Minister expect its first sitting to take place?

§ Mr. Hanson
I understand that we hope it will take place early next week.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, given that we have engaged in a seven-hour debate on the Bill for which he was not present. Let us put that aside for a moment, however.
As I have said, the Bill is important. It gives the Welsh Assembly powers, and it is the first Bill relating exclusively to Wales since the House of Commons passed devolution legislation. Our wide-ranging debate tonight recognised those facts.
The motion proposes that the Committee stage conclude on 1 February. I think that that allows plenty of time for discussion of the Bill, which contains only eight clauses and one schedule. It involves important points of principle, which have been discussed to some extent today. No doubt Members will be keen to discuss them further during later stages of the Bill's passage.
I think that the motion allows enough time for detailed debate on the clauses. I anticipate the possibility of five sittings, but the motion allows time for more if they are needed. That is a matter for the Opposition.
Today's debate has given us a flavour of some of the key subjects for debate, which I know will be discussed in detail in Committee. One of the main advantages of timetabling is that it allows us to concentrate on important issues. I commend the motion to the House.

§ Mr. Evans
I am sure that it will not go unnoticed that, having failed to make our reasoned amendment, we give the Bill our full support. However, we shall seek in Committee to amend the Bill along the lines of our reasoned amendment. In his reply to the previous debate, and after listening to concerns expressed by Labour and by Conservative and other Opposition Members, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that he would carefully consider the amendments that we are proposing. [Interruption.] We shall have a chance to debate those amendments in Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There are so many private conversations in the Chamber that it is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Evans
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
301 It is significant that the Under-Secretary admitted that he felt that the pleas made in the debate by various right hon. and hon. Members should be carefully considered and debated in Committee. I look forward to that Committee.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
Can my hon. Friend tell us how many sittings he understands it is proposed that the Committee shall have in considering the Bill's relatively few clauses? Is he aware how many hours it is proposed should be allocated for consideration of the Bill? If so, will he divulge the details?

§ Mr. Evans
In initial discussions, it was said that there might be four or five sittings. However, as we have just heard from the Under-Secretary, there might be more sittings, depending on the number of amendments tabled. It is unclear how many hours we shall have at our disposal to amend the Bill. However, as the motion states, the Committee's consideration of the Bill should be concluded no later than Thursday 1 February.
As Labour Members know, the Opposition do not agree with programming or guillotining Standing Committees' consideration of Bills. We therefore oppose the motion on that basis alone. We are opposed also to the very fact that discussions on programming the Committee's consideration will be held in a hybrid Committee that deliberates in private and without a record of votes or proceedings. It was the Government who talked about transparency and wanted transparency of government; yet they want to conduct such proceedings in a Committee that they themselves created.

§ Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that, as I understand it, no minutes will be taken of the Programming Sub-Committee's sittings, would it be open to any hon. Member serving on the Standing Committee who happened to be present to take his own minutes and publish them after the event?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is a private meeting of a Select Committee, and Select Committee procedure applies.

§ Mr. Evans
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean—I seek your clarification—that any hon. Member may attend the sittings?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is the normal practice of Select Committees, and, as I said, Select Committee procedure applies.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been a member of various Select Committees, and I know that transcripts are made of Select Committee proceedings. Would it not help our proceedings if transcripts were made of the proceedings in question, so that we can discover precisely what happened?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is asking questions that he could be asking the Minister in the debate. Perhaps he should not pursue the matter now, as that is taking us beyond the scope of the debate.

§ Mr. Evans
I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Leigh
Does my hon. Friend agree that we could take these matters forward slightly if we had a proper 302 transcript? At least then we would know what had happened? Do the official Opposition agree that we should have a transcript of those meetings?

§ Mr. Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I was just about to make the plea that those meetings should be open. If the Government insist that they are private meetings, there should not only be a transcript so that there are no interpretations afterwards, but a record of any votes. I ask the Government to think very carefully before implementing this programming motion.

§ Mr. Bercow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was not just wallowing in metaphysical abstraction, but making a profoundly relevant and concrete point? In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that the reason it is so relevant and concrete is that only last week, as a result of the absence of a voting account or even the published minutes of the Programming Sub-Committee, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I subsequently had a great argument about what had or had not been said. Neither of us could be proved right or wrong precisely because of a lacuna in the proceedings.

§ Mr. Evans
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to make that point. If there were transcripts of the meetings, all hon. Members could read the deliberations and find out how the Programming Sub-Committee had decided how many minutes should be allocated to debating each clause and amendment. As in all such matters, there are leaks and two members of the Committee might produce different versions of why it had reached a procedural decision.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
Is there any need for such minutes? The Government constantly told us that it was up to the Opposition to decide what was debated, when and for how long. That was the advantage of the new procedure for us. We do not need to know what they would say had taken place; we need merely to publish our version as, according to them, that is what will count.

§ Mr. Evans
My hon. Friend knows that there is such a thing as spinning, and the Government have been doing it all evening. They have been spinning the procedure on the Bill from start to finish, and no doubt that will continue in the Sub-Committee. They could produce a different interpretation of what they heard in the sub-committee. It might be a genuine misinterpretation or it might simply be spin, which unfortunately happens too often in this place.

§ Mr. Wilshire
I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and I understand why he is concerned that we should have some details of what is decided. If I understand him correctly—perhaps he will put me right if I am not following his argument—we are being invited to vote on a programming motion, but the details will be worked out subsequently. Is that what he is saying? If so, how can he give the Opposition any guidance from the Front Bench on whether the Government are being 303 sensible, or whether, as usual, they are trying to shuffle things out of here and work out afterwards and behind closed doors what suits them? Is he telling me that I am being asked to vote for an almost corrupt way of doing things? Is that what he is asking me to do?

§ Mr. Evans
I certainly would not ask my hon. Friend to do anything of that sort. He is right to say that we do not know, because when the motion has been approved the matter will go to a closed Committee on Thursday, with no record of proceedings or votes.
The Government Whip is listening attentively. He will be in the Programming Sub-Committee, but I will not know what has been said if I am not there. How can we support the motion when we do not know how much time will be allocated? Various issues were raised on Second Reading, and right hon. and hon. Members may want to discuss them at length in Committee. We are being asked to give the Programming Sub-Committee a blank cheque to decide in secret how much time is allotted to a very important Bill that has our full support.
Why cannot the sitting be open, so that everyone can hear what is said by Government and Opposition Members and fully understand our positions? Many children's charities are interested in the Bill and have already made representations to us. They may be horrified to find that important matters have been allotted only a short time for consideration. That is wholly wrong. Let us have transparency and allow the charities to make up their own minds about who is giving fair consideration to the Bill.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about charities. Does he agree that charities will think it extraordinary that the very party that pressed, both in opposition and in government, for freedom of information legislation is now saying that it wants closed government, concealed from the public and from those who are interested in this very worthwhile Bill?

§ Mr. Evans
Of course. This is not freedom of information, it is freedom for the Government to do what they want and railroad through the legislation in a carefully scheduled and timetabled way, with scant regard for the proper scrutiny that we are here to give.
To be an effective Opposition, we need sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation properly and consider the suggestions that the children's charities have carefully worked out. Several Government Back Benchers spoke about some of those suggestions. If we do not have enough time to scrutinise amendments, the resulting legislation may be deficient and we will not have done our job properly.
Several children's charities have made representations to us on the matter. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke passionately during the Second Reading debate; he will want to table amendments—like him, we share some of the concerns expressed by the charities. He said that he wants the measure to be enacted as soon as possible—as do we.
Of course, we know that there is pressure on Government time; they may want to call a general election—the sooner the better for us; we welcome the 304 election as soon as possible. We do not know whether the general election will be called in April, in May or even later. We know that the Government could continue until next year, but it is unlikely that they will want to do so because wheels are failing off their bandwagon and, every week, something new turns up. They will want to go to the polls as quickly as they can.
That limits the time for our discussion of this legislation. If the Government could indicate when the general election will be held—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is privy to regular discussions on such matters with the Prime Minister—we could more carefully arrange the timetable ourselves so as to ensure that the Bill is passed; we want it to become an Act.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that he did not want the Bill to proceed with undue haste. I agree. We do not want a quick, shoddy measure that will not do the job that we intend for it. We want an effective measure under which the Children's Commissioner will have the powers that he deems necessary to do a good job in Wales. We all want that, so we must make certain that, in the time allotted for examination of the Bill in Committee, we give due and proper consideration to the amendments that we table.

§ Mr. Fabricant
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the date of the general election—even if it were as early as 1 April, if that is a Thursday—to conclude the proceedings of the Standing Committee by Thursday 1 February would be extremely fast? Even if the Standing Committee were to conclude a month later than that, on 1 March, it would still be possible for Third Reading before the end of March, so the measure would still become law before a general election.

§ Mr. Evans
Part of the problem is the imposition of artificial dates and the pushing through of amendments not only from the Conservatives and other Opposition parties—so—called Opposition, in the case of the Liberal Democrat party—but from Labour Members. We have heard impassioned pleas for the extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner beyond the remit of the Welsh Assembly, for example.
The NSPCC has issued a parliamentary briefing in which it welcomes the introduction of the Bill to allow a Children's Commissioner for Wales. NSPCC believes that the Bill could be significantly improved by a series of uncontroversial amendments. These amendments would assist the Commissioner to put the interests of children first, and act across all policy areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children. I agree with the NSPCC; the amendments are uncontroversial. However, part of what the NSPCC asks for is included in our reasoned amendment, to which the Government took umbrage. How can we accept that the Government will agree to the uncontroversial amendments, in which we and some Government Back Benchers believe, without proper argument from members of that Committee?

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
My hon. Friend's remarks have been predicated on the fact that only the Government and Opposition Front Benchers will want to contribute to the Committee. Under the timetable that we are discussing, there is no excuse for Government Back 305 Benchers not to undertake their duty as Members of this place and to contribute to the debate on exactly the same basis as members of the Committee. They will, of course, form a majority, and time should be allowed for them to make a proper contribution, based on all the points that they wish to make.

§ Mr. Evans
I shall have more discussions, such as those that I had today, with a number of children's charities, and I know that those charities will also talk to Government Members. That is what Standing Committees are all about; indeed, it is what Parliament is all about—holding the Executive to account. Guillotines are always thought of as ways of shutting up Opposition Members, but they also restrict the contributions that Government Members can make on important legislation and on issues that affect their constituencies.
That worries me. Effective Back Benchers do not necessarily have to be members of the Opposition; they simply need a mind, a heart, passion, and to believe in something. The fact that they happen to sit on the Government side does not mean that they must check in their brains before they come in through the arch, have nothing to say, sit compliantly behind and nod at whatever the Minister happens to say.
There is a great onus on Government Back Benchers to pay careful attention to what their Government are doing. We have only to consider the arithmetic of this place to know that if the Government want to force things through, they will get their majority. To change the Government's mind, we need Government Bask Benchers with backbone, to stand up and march through the Lobby with us. We need them to have the time to listen to the representations by pressure groups outside and to present those arguments to Ministers. In Committee, Ministers, too, need the opportunity and the time to respond to the amendments that those Back Benchers table.
If there is an allotted amount of time, and someone tables an amendment on incorporating the United Nations convention on the rights of the child in the Bill, how do we know how much time will be given to that aspect of the legislation? We know that the National Assembly for Wales wanted the convention to be duly recognised in the Bill, and several Government Members mentioned it on Second Reading. The official Opposition will want to test the Government on the subject, too. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has mentioned the UN convention, as have the Liberal Democrats. The entire House is as one on the matter—apart from Ministers, who say that they are very cautious about incorporating the convention in the Bill.
How do we know that sufficient time will be given to enable all Members to make their representations to the Minister in Committee, and to allow the Minister to argue cogently why he cannot accept amendments supported by so many Members? The Standing Committee represents the part of our proceedings when the Members who know most about the subject have the opportunity to table amendments, yet we do not know whether the Government will allot sufficient time.

§ Mr. Bercow
My hon. Friend is developing a powerful argument about the legislature's responsibility to hold the Executive to account. However, is he aware that, during approximately 15 hours' debate in the Committee with 306 which I am currently involved—this is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making, Madam Deputy Speaker—only one of seven Government Back Benchers has so far made a speech, and a pretty short and ineffectual one at that, and two of them have yet to open their mouths? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Members who serve on that Committee are still trying to work out whether the Labour Members have absolutely nothing to say, or whether they have something to say but have been instructed in no uncertain terms not to say it?

§ Mr. Evans
That may well remain a mystery to many hon. Members, although we all have an inkling about exactly how the Government try to squeeze out any independent thought. They welcome the fact that Labour Members say absolutely nothing to interrupt the clear passage of whatever the Government want to happen.
This is an important Bill. Its title suggests that it will affect Wales only, but during its Second Reading we have seen that several cross-border matters are involved. Children who go from Wales to England will not receive the same protection and care, because England has a children's rights director, not a Children's Commissioner with the enhanced powers that the Bill will provide.

§ Mr. Brady
Does my hon. Friend agree that when this United Kingdom Parliament legislates for Wales. Scotland or Northern Ireland—or, perhaps, for England only—we have a special duty to give proper attention to that legislation; and that, as we do not all come from the particular part of the United Kingdom involved, we should give it more time and pay more attention to ensure that we legislate properly?

§ Mr. Evans
The Conservative party still believes in a United Kingdom Parliament, representing all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I have said that the Bill is important for Wales, but it goes much wider because of the cross-border matters. As I said earlier this evening, several emerging countries may consider our deliberations. They view ours as the mother of Parliaments and they will consider how we pass legislation. The Bill is vital, and emerging democracies that wish to enter the 21st century and to he viewed as civilised may want to create their own children's commissioner.
We have not acted in splendid isolation; we have looked at various examples, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Germany. [Interruption.] The National Assembly, the Library and those who are interested in the Bill have been looking at the children's commissioners or ombudsmen that have been created throughout the world. So several other countries will look to Britain when we establish our Children's Commissioner.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the motion.

§ Mr. Evans
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saying that, but I am trying to say—perhaps badly—that we must ensure that there is sufficient time in Committee to debate the Bill, not only because we want to get it right, but because it will have an impact far beyond Wales and this country, given that other democracies will consider what we have done.

§ Mr. Swayne
I do not wish to make trouble for my hon. Friend, but I may have become confused. He seems 307 to be making a powerful argument for the guillotine by suggesting that if we allowed the ordinary Standing Committee procedures to apply, we would draw in the United Nations declaration. He seems to suggest that we can keep it out by pursuing the guillotine. That seems to be a powerful argument for such a guillotine.

§ Mr. Evans
My hon. Friend, who is sometimes mischievous, is putting an opposing view. I hear his powerful call to be a member of the Committee that considers the Bill, and that request will be carefully considered. I am not saying that the UN convention has universal support in the House, but a number of Labour Members, Conservative Members and Members of other Opposition parties think that it is a good idea and that the Bill would be enhanced by its incorporation. If my hon. Friend is privileged to be a member of the Committee, he may want to put a counter-argument to some of the suggestions that are made. We must make sure that the arguments of all Members, irrespective of their views, can be fleshed out and worked through in the time allotted to us. The fact that my hon. Friend may be in a minority of one does not make him wrong. I remember that when Margaret Thatcher used to go to Europe, she was often in a minority of one, but that made her all the more right—although that may not necessarily be true of my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend says that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) sometimes puts an opposing view. My view may be less opposed to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). When other countries, particularly emerging democracies, are looking at our procedures in the House—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier comment. We are straying wide of the motion, which concerns the setting up of a Committee, regardless of what other democracies may or may not do.

§ Mr. Brady
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is precisely that. Other democracies, looking at our procedures in the mother of Parliaments, would be disgusted to learn that considerations concerning the setting up of a Committee and the guillotining of its proceedings are held in private and not even minuted. If they were to follow our poor example of having Committees that sit in private, behind closed doors, without their proceedings being minuted—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a very long intervention.

§ Mr. Evans
I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
I would say that other countries have a lot to learn about the Bill and about how we are trying to protect the welfare of our children, but they have nothing to learn from the procedures that we have introduced in this place.

§ Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservatives were in government 308 and at the Welsh Office, they covered up the paedophilia that was going on in Wales and in the Welsh Office—officials were involved—and that for all those years they refused to take any action to protect children in Wales? Are they not guilty of total hypocrisy?

§ Mr. Evans
The hon. Lady knows that I have a lot of respect for her, but I am not exactly certain what she is referring to. The Bill arises from the Waterhouse inquiry, which was set up by the leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), when he was Secretary of State for Wales. That is relevant to our discussion.
I have a final plea to make to Ministers. We have a briefing document from a former Member of Parliament, Gareth Wardell, who is highly respected by Members on both sides of the House. He has made several representations on areas of the Bill that he believes could be improved, including the UN convention, which I have already mentioned: areas where the commissioner ought to have direct contact with children; cross-border areas, which are vital; and non-devolved areas. That is only a small number of the areas on which Gareth Wardell and his charity have concerns. As I said, several other children's charities have already made representations, many along similar lines to Mr. Wardell's.
We are asking for an opportunity to debate and discuss those issues properly. Sidelining the whole thing to a Committee in secret so that it can cobble together a systematic guillotining of the Bill would not be in the Bill's best interests. Quite frankly, we would not end up ensuring that the Bill will give Wales the Children's Commissioner that we all seek for it. Will the Government reconsider the way in which they are undertaking the guillotine and give the House time to scrutinise the legislation properly?

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
I should like to look at this matter from the Government's point of view, and shall try to offer a reasonable argument.
The Government argue that the old Standing Committee procedure did not work. Committees would meet for hundreds of hours, and would spend the first 100 hours on clause 1 and various filibusters. No Government Members, Back Benchers or otherwise, would ever speak and there was not a proper debate. That system did not work very well. I have served on a number of Standing Committees in this Parliament, and in all of them, including those considering big social security Bills, which were highly controversial—indeed, much more so than this Bill—that was not the nature of the debate.
In Committees in this Parliament on which I have served, Conservative Members have not wasted their time in filibustering hour after hour and making pointless speeches on the first clause of a Bill. In fact, we have come to an agreement with the Government early on and had a good debate. The Government have not guillotined any big Bills in Committees on which I have sat. We have had good debates, which, I accept, have lasted for 100 hours. Why not? Surely, the Opposition's purpose is to scrutinise legislation and have a proper debate. However, that was done by agreement.
I do not necessarily accept that the old system never worked and that there was a lot of time wasting. I agree that, in previous Parliaments, Labour Members—not 309 Conservative Members—decided that they wanted to force a guillotine. They felt that it was politically attractive to be able to go to the general public and say that they had done their job, especially on issues concerning trade union membership and privatisation Bills. They would often spend hour after hour in Committee, debating at inordinate length the early clauses of Bills to ensure that the then Conservative Government were forced to introduce a guillotine.
I did not see the point of that and am not sure what it achieved from Labour Members' point of view, but it was their decision. I do not think that we have been guilty of that on many occasions. However, such behaviour is a decision for the Opposition. In a democracy, the Government have the right to get their Bills through. They have the majority and, eventually, they will get all their Bills through. The previous Conservative Government got all their Bills through; this Government have got all their Bills through.
However, the Opposition have one great right—to debate, determine the timetable to a reasonable extent and pick the areas of debate. All Oppositions have done that. I am trying to look at this from the point of view of the Government, who want to create a new system. I should have thought that one purpose of a new system involved getting rid of one-sided debate in Standing Committee, having a programme motion from the beginning and having an end date clearly in view. Because one has an end date, Government and Opposition Members will want to intervene and give regular speeches. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear, when the new system has worked, it has not resulted in that. There is still a certain reticence on the part of Government Back Benchers, so I am not sure what the new system is designed to achieve.
If Government Back Benchers do not want to speak, that is their decision. Leaving that to one side, if one is going to have such a system, surely it must be based on a certain degree of consensus. The Second Reading debate should be given a day or half a day and the arguments should be listened to. The Government should then consider, during a reasonable delay, how controversial a Bill is and how many amendments are likely to be tabled. The programme motion should then be introduced. The Government should not try to force it through on the same evening as the Second Reading debate.
Time and again last week, we heard entirely formal comments from Ministers and we heard them again today. The Minister is a fair-minded man, but his was not a lengthy speech on a programme motion saying, "Look, we have had the debate, various comments have been made and it is likely to take a couple of months or even six weeks to consider the Bill. I want to proceed on the basis of consensus and I shall listen to both sides of the argument."

§ Mr. Hanson
The programme motion has been agreed by the Opposition.

§ Mr. Leigh
I am sorry, but the programme motion has not been agreed by the Opposition and I am sure that we shall vote against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is shaking his head, so the Minister is wrong. The Opposition have not agreed to a system that locks us into finishing consideration by 1 February. That could not be fair.

§ Mr. Hanson
rose—

§ Mr. Leigh
I am trying to be reasonable and I am trying to consider the matter from the Government's point of view.
The Bill is non-controversial. When Mrs. Thatcher called early elections in June 1983 and in 1987, she had the self-confidence to realise that she may have to re-introduce certain Bills. I agree that allowing the Bill to spend perhaps six weeks in Committee may mean that it will fall foul of a general election. Well, bring it back. The Government should base their programme not on a general election, but on what is right. What is the Bill about? Are we trying to introduce good legislation? The Government should try to reach a reasonable agreement with the Opposition so that they can debate those matters fully and reasonably and table amendments.
The Speaker has made a point about Programming Sub-Committees. Are they true Select Committees? I have been a member of several Select Committees, which produce transcripts. Private sittings often deal with non-controversial issues, but when—
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 67.

§ Mr. Wilshire
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next debate is about a very serious and important matter. Many hon. Members wish to speak.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but there is another motion to deal with. Is that the matter that is so important?

§ Mr. Wilshire
Yes. It is an issue about which many hon. Members wish to speak—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the next motion on the Order Paper is not for debate, however important he thinks it is.