Business of the House

HC Deb 09 May 2001 vol 368 cc129-58

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

1. (1) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [23rd January] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence;
2. (2) At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;
3. (3) At this day's sitting. Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Standing Order No. 38 shall apply and the Order [7th November 2000] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question;
4. (4) At this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion relating to Estimates 2001–02;
5. (5) At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply;
6. (6) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;
7. (7) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and
8. (8) At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.—[Mr. Pope.]

4.17 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am surprised that no Minister has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain this complicated and controversial motion. As has so often been the case, the House must now flounder around and guess the Government's intentions. We have had no guidance from the Government. Sadly, this Parliament will end in the way that it has proceeded—

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken on business motions through most of the Session. Why is he surprised at today's motion, given that similar motions have been taken formally at this stage of the House's proceedings for the past 30 years?

Mr. Forth

I can imagine that that happened because for most of that time, we had a lousy Opposition who did not do their job properly. In opposition, the right hon. Lady's party clearly neglected its parliamentary duties and let everything go through on the nod. Things have changed.

Mrs. Beckett

The right hon. Gentleman's concern is even more surprising because, in what is known as the wash-up period in the previous Parliament, some 16 pieces of legislation were put o[...]n the statute book. One of them was an education Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman was leading for the then Government.

Mr. Forth

I am delighted to say that I was able to conduct my business easily because there was no opposition to it. As I said, times have changed. We may have different roles in the next Parliament, and we shall have to see how we get on.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

My right hon. Friend does not normally need defending, but the gravamen of the criticism from the Leader of the House on these occasions always seems to be that he was in the past an unquestioning, compliant, ambitious and possibly even sycophantic Member of Conservative Governments. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that even if he did commit those sins, everything that he has done in this Parliament has completely made up for his errors of commission in the past?

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever. However, something of a metamorphosis often takes place among Members of Parliament, depending on whether they are in opposition or in government. I say in the most kindly way to the Leader of the House that the same might even be said to have happened to her.

Whether or not we are in what the Leader of the House quaintly called a wash-up period, we are doing parliamentary business and we are legislating. It seems to have become fashionable, certainly on the Government Benches and, regrettably, among some of my colleagues as well, that legislation is a matter of formality. The idea is that we all operate, if possible, in a horrible consensual way, agree on what is generally good, but do not get around to good old-fashioned scrutiny or good old-fashioned opposition.

I may be a lone voice in this matter, but as long as I am a Member of this House—which I will be until Monday—I will stick to the old-fashioned view that almost everything done by any Government should be viewed with the greatest suspicion, and that the job of the Opposition is to scrutinise, delay, harry and make a nuisance of themselves until they are satisfied that they have done everything they can to make legislation what it should be for the people of this country. It is a simple and unsophisticated view, but then, that is the sort of chap I am.

I approach this motion in the same spirit of simple, unsophisticated criticism. First, however, I should like to welcome an aspect of the motion. Now there is a turn-up for the books, and I hope that it will make the right hon. Lady's day. Paragraph (2) of the motion says: At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour". That is a faint echo of the way things used to be. We are being given a proper opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Government business. I guarantee to the right hon. Lady that it will be opposed—at least, I hope that I can guarantee it. That is, after all, what we are here for. However, I find it encouraging that the business can be conducted until any hour. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches will welcome the measure and take every opportunity that it presents.

That is my word of welcome to the Government and the Leader of the House for uncharacteristically generously allowing a proper amount of time for our proceedings. In a way, it answers the question that I put to the right hon. Lady a short while ago. Given the structure and flow of business that we anticipate over the next two

parliamentary days, and given that, as the right hon. Lady has indicated, we expect a number of amendments to come to us from another place but do not yet know the number, range and quality of those amendments, the motion, very wisely, allows us a proper amount of time in which to consider them. That is good news. However, it is probably the only good news that I can find in the motion.

Paragraph (4) of the motion says: the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with". I am always suspicious when I see such a provision. How do the Government expect us to react to it? When any Standing Order is dispensed with, we are entitled to be anxious. The point of Standing Orders is to provide the House with a structured way of proceeding with its business and to reassure all Members that their interests will be protected. Again, it is a matter of regret that no Minister—neither the Leader of the House nor anyone else—has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain why this rather casual dispensation with key elements of Standing Orders is being put before us, to which we are presumably expected to give our uncritical and admiring approval. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, will have something to say about that.

Paragraph (5) says:

At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time"— any such Bill, regardless of its contents, size, scale or substance—

shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day". That sounds very like our old friend "deemed", under a slightly different guise. The motion does not actually say "deemed" because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that can be a bit of a red rag to some of us bulls—

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

And heifers.

Mr. Forth

Does my hon. Friend want that remark on the record?

Mrs. Browning

indicated dissent.

Mr. Forth

She does not, but it will be now, I am afraid, because she will get a note from Hansard any minute.

The motion may not say "deemed", but I read it as being rather similar.

I want to clarify several points. First, am I to take that paragraph literally as it reads —that any Bill shall be brought in and read the First time and proceeded with as though we had had the Second Reading anyway? So now we are doing away with Second Readings. I thought that the Government had gone far enough already—they have done away with nearly everything else in the House. This must be the ultimate—the ultimate put-on, the ultimate sin, the ultimate act of arrogance. We shall not even have Second Readings a[...]ny more. We shall simply accept legislation, give it a quick nod through, and bob's your uncle.

I suspect, if I know anything, and if I know the Government at all, that this could involve quite a large sum of money. In fact, if we turn the page, we can see that it probably does involve a large sum of money, not unadjacent to—it could not be £144 billion, could it, by any chance? We could not be being asked, could we, Mr. Speaker, to nod through £144 billion and loose change without even a Second Reading?

I hope that the Treasury Ministers who are sitting in the Chamber looking very pleased with themselves at the moment will do the House the courtesy of seeking to catch your eye at some stage, Mr. Speaker, and explain why 144 billion quid of taxpayers' money should be nodded through without even a Second Reading.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury)

Is my right hon. Friend aware of any precedents—apart from the deeming, which we debated at great length and with great consternation in this place? Are there precedents for dispensing with Second Readings, and if so, does my right hon. Friend believe that the judiciary might find that of some note when considering the interpretation of statute in due course?

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very interesting and [...]useful point. I hope that the motion does not create or provide a precedent, because I could just imagine that in some future Parliament, were there to be another Labour Government of this kind, they might well seek to introduce measure such as this and then quote this precedent and say, "But it was done before, and that was okay."

Is not the sole point of a motion like this—which, I am glad to say, can be debated until any hour, which is very reassuring to me, at least—to bring out matters such as this and at least to place on the record the fact that some Members of Parliament are unhappy about this; that some Members of Parliament do care, even at this stage of this Session of this Parliament; and that nodding through £144 billion is not our idea of parliamentary scrutiny? There is something for my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to think about. Perhaps they do not think that £144 billion is very much, but I do, so it is another question that we must answer for ourselves.

Paragraph (6) of the motion says—I suppose that I should give this a slightly qualified welcome because it involves you, Mr. Speaker—

At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn, the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received: so, quite properly, we are making provision for the House to be available properly to consider or to receive messages from another place.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to what will happen if no such messages are received? Will we stay here, presumably for ever?

Mr. Forth

That is a glorious thought, and one that I would very much welcome—whether the electorate would welcome it, I do not know—but I do not read the motion in that way. I can see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but the motion says: until any messages … shall have been received; so, in the quaint but correct old grammar that we delight in here—I am pleased to say that we do—it is making proper provision for, but not necessarily tying us into, the receipt of such messages.

The point is that, in paragraph (6), we are celebrating the fact that we have two Houses of Parliament, both of which have an important role to play, and that even in this wash-up—to use the quaint phrase of the Leader of House, which seems to be her attempt to say, "All this is very trivial and does not matter too much, so why are we bothering with it?"—both Houses of Parliament have a role to play, so we, properly, will be here, waiting to hear what those in the other place may say. I hope that they have a lot to say about some of the rather ghastly Bills that will be put through Parliament before Dissolution.

Mr. Bercow

My right hon. Friend's interpretation of paragraph (6) might be unreasonably narrow. Given that the motion does not refer to a time limit—certainly not in relation to the receipt of Lords messages—will he reconsider and accept the possibility that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is correct?

Mr. Forth

Our hon. Friend may be correct, but the combination of paragraph (2)—which I welcome, as it states that Government business on 10 and 11 May can be proceeded with until any hour—and paragraph (6) offers some interesting possibilities. However, all this will, of course, depend on what Members of the other place decide to do to the pretty revolting Bills that are still washing about in the parliamentary system. I should also like to think that we could somehow prevent them from reaching the statute book. I should also like to think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will resist them stoutly, but I have been a Member long enough not to be too optimistic about that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

May I seek clarification from my right hon. Friend? The phrase, any messages from the Lords shall have [...]been received is used in paragraph (6). Does he assume that the word "received" includes the term "considered", because I believe that both those words are important? Will he consider that point?

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as the very respected, influential and extremely senior Chairman of the Procedure Committee, knows about such things better than almost anyone else. I had not thought of the point that he makes, but I wish to consider it immediately.

My hon. Friend raises the intriguing possibility that we could not adjourn on 10 May until we had received a message, which we would then consider on 11 May, but what about those messages received on 11 May? Presumably, we should have to continue to sit while what we in the trade rather quaintly know as ping-pong takes place between the House and another place and until either everyone gets tired and goes away, which I hope will be the case, or the ghastly Bills involved receive Royal Assent and finally come to rest on the statute book, which I hope will not be the case. One way or another, the motion offers some intriguing possibilities about what could happen during the open-ended, unlimited parliamentary days on 10 and 11 May.

Of course, as my hon. Friend knows better than most, another peculiarity is that if the parliamentary day of 10 May were to continue until 9.30 the following morning. 11 May would not exist. So the intriguing possibility that arises, even as I speak, is that, as I understand our procedures, we may find ourselves with a lot of business on 10 May because another place had happily sought to amend those ghastly Bills considerably. If the Government wanted to resist that process and if, even with closure motions, we considered the business through the night on 10 May and past 9.30 the following morning, 11 May could not exist as a parliamentary day. That, in turn, raises some very intriguing possibilities, if we were to approve the motion. If the Government have committed themselves to Dissolution on Monday 14 May, we may well face the possibility of the Bills that they think they will obtain not being passed.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

I find my right hon. Friend's train of thought extremely helpful. Will he extend it a little further? If the House were to continue sitting, not only might we lose the 11th, but we might also lose the 12th, the 13th and the 14th. Does he consider that, if the 14th did not exist because we were still sitting, it would be possible to dissolve Parliament on a day that did not exist?

Mr. Forth

The Government are in trouble; the more we examine this possibility, the more matters spin delightfully out of control. I suspect that the people of Bromley and Chislehurst want the coming election like a hole in the head. I suspect that that is mainly because they are entirely satisfied with their existing representation in the House. However, were the election not to take place because of Government cock-ups, and it looks as though we are entering that territory—

Mr. Winterton

Wash-ups!

Mr. Forth

Wash-ups or cock-ups, I can tell my hon. Friend that no tears will be shed in Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

May I take issue with my right hon. Friend? Is not what he says nonsense on stilts? The stilts are that he bases all his arguments on his belief that the Government will live and abide by traditional parliamentary practices, while the truth is that they will simply crush the Opposition, if necessary with guillotines, and will ensure that we depart when they want us to do so.

Mr. Forth

I have never regarded my hon. Friend as crushable. He certainly does not look crushable to me. As long as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in this place, representing their constituents and taking their parliamentary duties seriously, crushing will not come into the question. Certainly, we are finding that, as we probe this ill-thought-out motion, it is defective and has not properly considered the possibilities that lie before us. I now realise, having reached this part of my analysis,

why Ministers did not try to introduce the motion in the normal way: either they were ashamed of it, or they realised that it was defective or, as is more likely—although I freely admit that that would be uncharacteristic of the Leader of the House—they did not want to submit themselves to parliamentary scrutiny. I exonerate the Leader of the House entirely from that accusation because she is fearless and would be more than prepared to face any criticism.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien

The exchanges between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) follow the train of thought that I was pondering while trying to interpret the rather difficult wording of the motion. Does it seem to my right hon. Friend that the drafting may have been in error? The rather arrogant assumption has been made that we are so used to programme motions and unused to holding debates until any hour that this technique has been used—completely forgetting that the parliamentary day may not be a calendar day, thus giving rise to potential confusion and great constitutional dilemma.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although he has not been a Member of the House for as long as many—indeed most—his mastery of the intricacies of parliamentary procedure is most impressive. I congratulate him on that. The only fly in all that ointment is my tiny inkling of doubt as to how far my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are determined to run the Government ragged during the next two parliamentary days.

Mrs. Browning

I am hurt to the quick that my right hon. Friend should even suggest that there is any question that the official Opposition will not run the Government ragged whenever they get the chance. He knows that the allegation is most unjust. I must ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Forth

I do not want to be drawn too deeply into that analysis. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can talk about it in the Tea Room—much later, when this debate has matured. We are only making our opening shots at present; indeed, so far I am the only speaker. As the debate is blessed—unusually—by being tabled for "any hour", I can say with some confidence that my hon. Friend's visit to the Tea Room with me will be delayed for a while longer.

Mr. Bercow

I am now immensely perturbed by my right hon. Friend's comments—

Mr. Winterton

Too mellifluous?

Mr. Bercow

I do not think that they have been mellifluous. In fact, I find rather alarming the suggestion that if we lose Friday 11 May as a parliamentary day, paragraph (8) of the motion—with each word of which the Leader of the House will be familiar—will immediately fall and it will not, therefore, be possible to reconvene the House on 14 May. Would it not be rather unfortunate if my surmise were correct, given that, if we could return on 14 May to engage in the extremely important debates that remain to be had, those debates could potentially be led by the Prime Minister, which would be most welcome because he would be present in the House and not hectoring and intimidating innocent south London schoolchildren?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is not prone to flights of fancy, but the suggestion that the Prime Minister would appear in the House is one of them and I do not take his comment seriously as result.

However, the worrying possibility arises that Her Majesty the Queen might be kept waiting in Buckingham Palace, without knowing what is to happen. I do not know whether Her Majesty has been told by the Government or by the Prime Minister during his extremely brief visit yesterday what he thinks will happen, but I hope that she has been warned that, as a result of the defective nature of the motion, she might be kept waiting longer than she anticipated to give Royal Assent, if any of the ghastly Bills proceeds in that direction, as I hope none will.

Having explored the questions raised by paragraph (6), let us move on swiftly to paragraph (7), which rests on the assumption that there will be a sitting on Friday 11 May—a large question mark hangs over that one now, I grant. In the statement: the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses", a rather large number of assumptions are implicit. The motion acknowledges, and we should remember, that both Houses are fully involved in the process. As for the reporting of Royal Assent, I assume that everyone—all 659 of us—will be present on that day, waiting for the Speaker to tell us whether or not Royal Assent has been granted. We should be in dereliction of our parliamentary duty were we not here, so I expect to see a full House on Friday 11 May, especially on the Government side—after all, a Government motion has said that the House shall be here, and it might even be thought disrespectful to Mr. Speaker if we were not here in our numbers to hear him report the Royal Assent to the Government's own Bills. I am not sure that the Opposition need to be here—I certainly do not want to hear that those ghastly Bills have received Royal I Assent. However, I am sure that Government Members will want to be present, enthusiastic, keen, eager and joyous to hear that the Bills have finally got Royal Assent.

Leaving that question to one side, because it is not for me to delve too deeply into the extent to which Government Members welcome their Government's measures, we come to the most puzzling aspect of all. My question is largely technical in nature, but worth asking none the less. Paragraph (8) states At its rising on Friday 11th May"— a day that is now in doubt—

the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May. However, I distinctly heard the Leader of the House say earlier that Parliament would be dissolved on Monday 14 May. It might be another typographical error or an error of drafting—although I find that difficult to believe given the expertise of the Clerk and his colleagues—a cock-up or a piece of deception, self-deception or otherwise, but the question arises in my mind of how the House can adjourn to Tuesday 15 May when, as we have already been told, it is to be dissolved on Monday 14 May. That strikes me as some form of parliamentary oddity of which some explanation is required.

Mr. Winterton

I seek clarification on paragraph (2), which states:

At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour". It does not specify what Government business. Hon. Members could have their own ideas about that. For example, we might want to include the borough of Macclesfield in the business rate relief scheme that has arisen from the foot and mouth outbreak. The constituency of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), which is covered by the scheme, is hardly agricultural and rural, whereas 90 per cent. of the geographical area of Macclesfield is Does my right hon. Friend believe that paragraph (2) allows such issues to be considered for debate?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend has been here since the beginning of the debate and it has taken him nearly half an hour to mention Macclesfield and its interests, which he has looked after for 30 years. That must be something of a record. Although I welcome paragraph (2), I appreciate his intervention because the extent to which Government business might include items other than those mentioned by the Leader of the House needs clarification. She verified that there will be Treasury questions tomorrow and gave a list of the business to be dealt with. It remains to be seen whether it is an exhaustive list, although it certainly sounds as though it might be exhausting. The key consideration is that we could have another business statement tomorrow to change or add to business on Friday 11 May, were that to exist as a parliamentary day.

Although it is not for me to answer my hon. Friend—this is, after all, a Government motion—I shall do my best because I am the only person who has shown any interest in the debate, which I am also trying; to initiate. I believe that Macclesfield could find its way on to the Order Paper on Friday as part of a Government business motion. He has got from now until the rising of the House to persuade the Government to do that. That is the best advice—as if he needed it—that I can give.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a third time, especially as I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who also represents the good county of Cheshire. I note that as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) was fortuitously sitting behind the Treasury Minister, he was able to be briefed. With so many Ministers present on the Front Bench, we may well get an answer to my hon. Friend's query through the combination of our interventions.

I want to drag my right hon. Friend—possibly kicking and screaming—back to paragraph (7). On Royal Assent, the Government's plan to scrap community health councils is close to my heart and those of my constituents. Cheshire has excellent examples of community health councils. The other place has also shown grave concern on patients' behalf about the proposals to scrap those august institutions. They are worried about how they will operate. Does my right hon. Friend think that we will have an opportunity to understand the timetabling, in parliamentary day terms, and how the ping-pong will work? In the absence of any response from the Government, I have to seek answers from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth

I shall do my best to oblige my hon. Friend. It is like the old days—I used to answer questions regularly at the Dispatch Box. It is with a sense of nostalgia that I find myself doing it today. I shall try to get myself back into that mood.

The Health and Social Care Bill, which covers community health councils, was mentioned by the Leader of the House as part of tomorrow's business. That much we do know. So an opportunity—I suspect that it might be limited—will arise to deal with such matters. As Cheshire is so generously and magnificently represented today, I assume that the same will apply tomorrow and that it will be possible for hon. Members to raise such issues. Whether the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will be in critical or obsequious mode tomorrow remains to be seen. Only time will tell. I have been dragged back reluctantly to considering paragraph (2)—I welcomed it earlier—but its wording suggests that the issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned will be covered because the Bill is Government business. We will certainly oppose the aspect of the Bill that he mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton assured us that we shall oppose vigorously almost everything in sight. That is very welcome news, so I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has grounds for optimism.

Mr. Swayne

rose—

Mr. Forth

I am trying to conclude my remarks, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Swayne

My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that he rather skated over the provisions in paragraph (3). Having decoded the paragraph, my understanding is that it will allow us to have proper Divisions and that there will be no deferred Divisions. I hope that he will have a few words of welcome for that even though it clearly suggests that we might have to decide on any number of Government orders.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. In my anxiety to skip quickly through the motion and to give ample time for other hon. Members to speak, I probably did not do justice to paragraph (3). Like him I had some difficulty decoding it, but if it means that these ghastly, irrelevant nonsenses of deferred Divisions are to be put aside, I will very much welcome the provision. I do not take part in deferred Divisions as a point of high principle. They are an insult, an irrelevance and nonsense—I do not do them. I strongly recommend that approach to all my right hon. and hon. Friends. If we are given an opportunity to vote properly on matters that would normally be deferred, that will be a welcome step. Subject to clarification from Ministers—as opposed to me answering all the questions—we could give a rather generous welcome to paragraph (3).

Mr. Bercow

rose—

Mr. Forth

I shall give way, but probably for the last time. I shall try to conclude my remarks to allow my

hon. Friends to seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense that there is a real enthusiasm for this debate, and I very much welcome that.

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His generosity of spirit invariably gets the better of him as the House is always aware. He will agree that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has performed a signal service.

Mr. Forth

As ever.

Mr. Bercow

As ever, as my right hon. Friend poignantly observes. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has performed a signal service in drawing attention to the tortuous wording of paragraph (3). Has my right hon. Friend noticed that that tortuous construction refers to a scenario in which the opinion of the Speaker is challenged? Surely such a scenario is positively unimaginable.

Mr. Forth

I certainly take my hon. Friend's advice on that—he should know. I must admit that I thought that I would skip over that part of the motion because it raises certain sensitivities. We would probably be better to draw a veil over them and leave the Government to explain why they admit of the possibility of the Speaker being challenged. That is not a matter for my hon. Friend or myself; it is certainly a matter for the Government. I bet that someone will find himself on the carpet when the Speaker is apprised of the words in paragraph (3). We had better leave it as a matter for the Speaker and Government.

Mr. Winterton

Order—[Laughter.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am used to listening intently from a different position.

My right hon. Friend is a highly respected Member of the House and the utterances of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are always fascinating and flowery, but the wording of paragraph (3) is entirely appropriate. When, at the end of the debate, the Speaker decides that the ayes have it, Members on the other side can say "No" and that means that there is a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend will concede that the Division is the appropriate means by which the House should operate. I am seeking to be helpful.

Mr. Forth

If I can find one other Member to be a Teller, I can virtually guarantee that that will happen.

I am surprised that my hon. Friend thought that he was in Westminster Hall, over which he presides with such distinction, because I have never set foot in the ghastly place and never intend to; I would not darken its doors. I regard it as an excrescence and irrelevance, and the sooner that we do away with it, the better. However, I do not want to digress.

I see that I am reaching the limit of your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do not want to exhaust the patience of the House. I thought that I would skip lightly through some of the salient elements of the motion, and hope that I have interested the House and my hon. Friends enough for them to think that it is worth them asking questions. Following my few words, I hope that Ministers will tell us something about those matters, as we have winkled out of the motion a few relevant, important and disturbing facts that require clarification.

4.56 pm

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

Our debate has a serious kernel, and we are trying to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should not get too excited about returning to the tradition of having a debate until any hour. I suspect that if our debate ran on, and even if perfectly serious points were made, the Government would move a closure motion at about 7.17 pm, three hours after we started at 4.17 pm.

The Government are ruthless about getting their own way and would not allow a situation to develop in which the House of Commons could perform its traditional function at any length. Looking down the Order Paper, I see that the Finance Bill programme motion may continue for up to 45 minutes, as may the programme motion for the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. The Government always ensure that, whatever happens and whatever the Opposition say, we are sent home at the witching hour of 10 o'clock, as it is not considered right for us to be here trying to scrutinise the Government after that time.

That is my first point. My second is the wider issue of how we are to proceed in the coming days. It is true that the business this Session has been an exceptionally light. It is also true that everybody has known the date of the general election for some time; there has been no mystery about it. Everybody knows that the Government would have liked to hold the election in May, but that was not possible because of the foot and mouth outbreak, so it was delayed.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion that we are discussing is the business of the House, not the date of the general election.

Mr. Leigh

I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking why, when everybody knows when Parliament is to be dissolved, it is not possible for more time to be allowed. After all, these are serious motions and Bills. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the House was given so little warning, and an impossible burden put on the Opposition. Most of the Bills that we will discuss in the next few days are popular and perfectly sensible, and the Opposition do not want to oppose them on principle—[Interruption] Well, some, but not all, of them.

Mrs. Beckett

Before the hon. Gentleman gets any deeper into the hole that he is digging for himself, I remind him that in the Session of 1982 to 1983, Parliament dealt with 10 Bills; in 1986 to 1987, it dealt with 14; in 1991 to 1992, it dealt with 11; in 1996 to 1997, it dealt with 16 I simply say to him that, contrary to the pointless remarks made by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends, the more that Opposition Members go on, the more apparent they make it that they expect never to be in government again; I sincerely hope that they are right.

Mr. Leigh

All that the right hon. Lady is saying is that we have not conducted our affairs very well in the past; we sandwiched an enormous amount of consideration into a short period, which, presumably, did not result in the right sort of scrutiny, so we should carry on as before. I am sure that when our business was conducted as it was previously and the right hon. Lady was sitting on the Opposition Benches, she also objected and felt that her point of view was not taken sufficiently into account, because she was in a minority. Why do we not take legislation seriously? Why do we not have a procedure that ensures that Bills undergo proper consideration?

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House—she knows that I respect her—I could not give a tinker's cuss about what happened in 1983, because at the time I was busily preoccupied with my university studies. Although we are not here to debate the date of the general election—as you poignantly reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker—the fact that the Government propose to hold the election 327 days before it needs to be called is relevant to our consideration of the motion. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government want to cut and run, there is no reason why we should be accommodating in our attitude? Rather, to adapt the words of our noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, we should invite Ministers to get on their bicycles and pedal them.

Mr. Leigh

The Government chose to prorogue Parliament earlier than they needed to. We on the Opposition Benches are perfectly entitled to insist that the remaining Bills are not rushed through and that there is proper scrutiny. I am sure that if the right hon. Lady were on these Benches, she would say exactly the same. Contrary to what she said, we have heard much from the Government about the need to modernise our procedures. Only today we heard from various quarters about the declining ability of the House to scrutinise the Executive. Why are we still dealing with our affairs in the same way as we did a few years ago, and not giving proper—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. May I once again remind the hon. Gentleman of the motion that we are discussing and how limited it is?

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Discussion of the motion is not simply a matter of the esteem in which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may hold the Leader of the House or the Government. It is also a matter of the impression created by the motion outside the House and the pressures that it exerts on Parliament. People who are intimately associated with the measures that we are to debate over the next few days will not understand why the House is giving scant consideration to matters that they believe, with some justification, are of paramount importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) should not be intimidated by the right hon. Lady quoting historical facts and figures, which go way beyond the experience of the vast majority of hon. Members in the Chamber. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to fight the cause of his constituents in Gainsborough, mine in South Holland and The Deepings, and the wider public.

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.

My second point relates to the extinguishment of private Members' rights. Government business will take precedence over that of private Members. It is regrettable—I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in his place—that it has proved impossible for private Members to enact their Bills during this Parliament. There is no point in Government Members complaining about Opposition Members who have sought to scrutinise such Bills; that is our right. My right hon. Friend is right to come here Friday after Friday, hold private Members to account and subject their Bills to scrutiny.

Despite the fact that everybody knew when Parliament was to be prorogued—presumably the Government have known that for weeks—the Government have produced a business motion that will prevent any private Members' Bills from making progress. Some excellent private Members' Bills have been presented, such as the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but the Government are entirely ruthless and kill off all such Bills.

With all the notice that we have had, and with everyone knowing for weeks, if not months, when the general election would be held, would it not have been possible for the Government to introduce a business motion that ensured that the rights of private Members were not extinguished? Is that fair? Is that right? Is that the proper way for Parliament to proceed?

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Is he aware that the vast majority of private Members' Bills are killed off by the Government Whip objecting to them? The Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, which would have been on the Order Paper for this Friday, is not supported and may even be opposed by the Government. That may explain what is going on.

Mr. Leigh

Yes. Regrettably, we often conduct our affairs with a lack of honesty. The Government cried crocodile tears and said to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, "We're terribly sorry. It's an excellent and worthwhile Bill, but there wasn't time." Presumably the Government are delighted that it will be killed off—perhaps they have friends in big business who dropped them a word. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should have been allowed to proceed with her Bill, which had broad support in the House. How could anyone want people to work on Christmas day? The Government are not being honest. Surely, with their majority, their authority and their ability to plan—they make the rules and control this place—they could have ensured that one of their own distinguished Members was given a chance to bring her private Member's Bill to a conclusion. Why this ruthless haste? Why has no consideration been given to the rights of private Members?

I hope that when we next consider these matters—perhaps in the Modernisation Committee—it will not be beyond the wit of Parliament to devise a means that allows us to plan a little, work out how many Bills need to go through and ensure that there is not the unseemly rush that we have had this time and, I accept, on previous occasions. We should ensure proper consideration of legislation right up to the end of the Parliament. Why else are we timetabling Bills? Why else is the Leader of the House telling us that the conduct of affairs in the past has not been adequate?

It is true that Oppositions have used the weapon of time, but that is the only weapon available to us. Should we be criticised for that? Should a small minority be criticised for trying to hold the Government to account by using the weapon of time? Did not the Labour party do precisely that? The right hon. Lady said that times have changed.

Mrs. Beckett

I want to correct the error that the hon. Gentleman is making. I do not criticise the Opposition for using time to discuss issues before the House. I would not do that, as that is their role. I criticise them for wasting time talking about how much time they are going to take.

Mr. Leigh

That was a patronising remark from the Leader of the House, wielding as she does enormous authority over our affairs. This is crucial—it is not a little, quibbling, debating point. It is vital in a democracy that the Government decide on the business and on what gets passed, whereas the Opposition decide what gets debated. That is our right, and it is how Oppositions hold Governments to account.

I accept the right hon. Lady's point that this is how we have always dealt with these matters in the past, but if she wants to go down in history as a modernising Leader of the House and to sweep away the nonsense of Oppositions filibustering and time wasting, and if she wants serious debate on the issues so that every amendment is reached, every part of every Bill is scrutinised and we provide our constituents with a proper service, she should introduce some worthwhile reform if she remains in her office.

Mrs. Browning

I gently remind my hon. Friend that, after 7 June when we have a Conservative Government, there will be no such thing as a Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Leigh

If the Conservative party is returned, as I sincerely hope it will be, it is vital that it reforms our procedures in the first six months. All Oppositions have good intentions—the Leader of the House had good intentions—but once that window of opportunity passes and a party has been in power for a few months, those good intentions about holding the Executive to account fall to pieces. How much progress have we made on reforming Select Committees and giving them real power? How much progress have we made on the matters that I have been discussing? Very little.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)

If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues reduced the amount of verbosity, we might have a chance later to debate motion 8 on estimates, which gives the Government permission to spend £149 billion. That is the sort of motion that the House should be debating, rather than spending too long discussing what is, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, a traditional motion.

Mr. Leigh

That is an example of what Oppositions are told. We are told that it is all our fault that the House cannot debate—in this instance—motion 8, which involves a huge amount of money, because certain Members have done what they are paid to do, and held the Government to account. But it is the Government who have stated on the Order Paper next to motion 8 that there will be no debate after 10 pm—no debate on a motion involving £149 billion. Does it not sum up the current Parliament that, if people do their job properly, it is perfectly possible for there to be no debate on the spending of £149 billion?

Mr. Hayes

My hon. Friend's erudition is matched only by his conscientious representation of the people of Gainsborough.

Will my hon. Friend consider for a moment the deep irony contained in the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)? He says that we should have more time in which to debate a matter that appears later on the Order Paper, yet makes no complaint about the way in which the current Parliament is being ended—about the fact that we are not being given more time over the next few days, perhaps weeks, to debate all these matters at greater length. If we were given more time, could we not engage in a fuller debate on both this motion and the matters that the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to discuss?

Mr. Leigh

It is indeed ironic that a member of an Opposition party, and many of his colleagues, should take every opportunity not to do their duty, hold the Government to account and attack them in connection with this or any other motion, but to attack the official Opposition, as though we were responsible—as though it were all our fault, and we had drafted the Order Paper in this way. We had no control over the Order Paper: no one consulted us. The business is simply being rammed through Parliament.

Mr. Davey

I was making a deeper point about the way in which we conduct our business. Under successive Governments of both blue and red persuasions, we have not debated public finance properly. We need to hold the Government to account, and the recommendations of the hon. Gentleman's party to the Norton Commission do not do that. That is why we should change the priorities of the House, so that we can scrutinise the way in which taxpayers' money is spent.

Mr. Leigh

That is a serious point, which I am happy to take on board. I agree that the reason why we have this Parliament at all—the reason why we are here, and the reason why our authority has grown so much since the 17th century—is that the general public placed confidence in us, and our ability to scrutinise the Executive in regard to the spending of public money. It is extraordinary that this evening we shall spend so little time—conceivably, no time at all—performing our primary function, and holding the Government to account on motion 8, entitled "Estimates, 2001–02".

I do not know whether hon. Members saw Simon Schama's programme about the civil war on BBC television last night. That was the origin of our House—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. May I please remind the hon. Gentleman once more of the narrowness of this debate?

Mr. Leigh

It is indeed a narrow debate, but despite its narrowness it reveals enormously deep and important issues that the House ignores at its peril if it is to continue to perform its primary function of holding the Government to account. That is what we have sought to do over the past four years; I am simply trying to protect the Labour party's position over the next four years, when Labour Members will be sitting on this side of the House.

5.14 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Let me begin by commenting on the two interventions from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). In his second intervention he said that the House does not scrutinise expenditure properly: I agree with him, and will deal with his point shortly.

The hon. Gentleman's first intervention, however, provides a useful starting point for consideration of the issues arising from the narrow motion that we are discussing. He said that, if the official Opposition were to spend less time scrutinising what the Labour Government were trying to do with democracy in this House, it would be possible to reach item 8 sooner, but that is not correct. If my arithmetic is any good, it will not be possible, whatever happens this afternoon, to get to item 8 before 10 o'clock. That tells us a great deal about the contempt in which the Labour Government hold democracy and the way in which the House exercises it.

If there had been no personal statement and no ten-minute Bill, we would have started with the statement for tomorrow's business and moved to this motion. Even if the motion had gone through on the nod, as the Leader of the House seemed to want, we would still have faced two programme motions of three quarters of an hour each: a total of an hour and a half. We would then have had a guillotined debate lasting three hours and another guillotined debate lasting two hours, which amounts to six and a half hours. If we had started on all that at half-past 3 and not had any of the debate that we have had this afternoon, and if there had been no Divisions—presumably, the Labour Government do not believe that we have a right to vote on anything any more; it is rather inconvenient for their view of democracy—it would have been 10 o'clock before we reached item 8. If we look at the programme motion, the Order Paper and the Standing Orders, we discover that we cannot debate any estimate matter after 10 o'clock, so the reality is not as the hon. Gentleman believed it to be.

When the Government argue that if we had not debated this motion we could have reached the estimates debate, they are talking rubbish. We would not have got on to the debate on the estimates. We would have again been required to act as a rubber-stamp for a Labour dictatorship who have no regard for the House.

Mr. Hayes

The point that I was trying to make in an earlier intervention, which I hope my hon. Friend will take on board, is that if all the business had not been crammed into today and we had continued to sit into next week, which would have been entirely possible, full debates on the matters that he has mentioned would have been possible, and perhaps a debate on the estimates as well, as requested by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).

Mr. Wilshire

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes his point for himself and I can do no more than agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) again demonstrated what a generous and kind man he is. He estimated that the Government might decide to move a closure motion after three hours. My hon. Friend's generosity disguises a truth about the Labour Government: I cannot remember one occasion when they have allowed a debate to go on for three hours when they could bring it to a halt in half an hour, one hour, one and a half hours or two hours. My hon. Friend might be proved right, but I suspect that he will not be. His generosity leads him to be kind to the Government; perhaps I am not usually so charitable.

During my hon. Friend's speech, there was an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, I believe it is.

Mr. Bercow

And Honiton.

Mr. Wilshire

And Honiton. Long may she remain the hon. Member for both places. Her intervention has made this entire debate worth while. She pledged from the Front Bench that, on 8 June, we shall get rid of what the Labour party euphemistically calls the Modernisation Committee, which I believe to be the stifling of democracy Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. May I again remind hon. Members just how narrow this debate is?

Mr. Wilshire

I understand the point that you make, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In two interventions on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Leader of the House made two very interesting points that are pertinent to the motion, the first of which was made after a large number of files were brought into the Chamber. That timing suggests not only that the Leader of the House was not willing to speak to the motion at the beginning of the debate and was simply hoping that it would be passed on the nod, but that she was ill-prepared to speak to it. It was only after the files arrived that we were given statistics that we could use to compare the Government's objective of ramming through certain Bills in the next two or three days with previous practice. I tried to write down her comments accurately, and I hope that I have understood her correctly. If I have not and she is listening, she will probably be able to correct me. I am not trying to misquote her in any way.

My understanding is that 10 Bills were passed at the end of the 1983 Parliament; 14 Bills at the end of the 1987 Parliament; 11 Bills at the end of the 1992 Parliament; and 16 Bills at the end of the 1997 Parliament. Subsequently, we were invited to compare those figures with what she considers to be the modest amount of legislation that the House is being asked to consider in the next two or three days.

Some of my hon. Friends take the view that what happened in the past was unfortunate, but I am not so sure about that. I accept that the party that wins the general election is entitled to legislate and is quite right to introduce as many Bills as it believes it can pass. I accept that train of thought, but the Leader of the House seems to be saying, "See how modest our list of Bills is", whereas I would say that the list is pathetically short. If the Government had anything worth doing—rather than

dithering, posturing, spinning and only seeming to be in control of this country—and were really trying to tackle problems, their list might stand better comparison with the figures that we have just been given.

Mr. Forth

Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment to the words that he has just offered to the House, when he said that an elected Government are entitled to legislate? An elected Government are entitled to put legislation before the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to persuade the majority of those Houses to pass that legislation. That is an elected Government's entitlement; no more, no less.

Mr. Wilshire

That is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend anticipates a point that I want to deal with in a moment or two.

Although I believe that a Government are entitled to introduce Bills and that the Government perhaps stand condemned out of their own mouths for having no real substance to put to the House and to the country, I do not believe that the Government have any right to object to Opposition Members doing properly that which we are here to do, which is to stop them. I make no apologies for trying to frustrate by any means that are legitimately at my disposal a Government whom I consider to be dreadful and damaging to my country and whom I want to remove from office as quickly as I can.

In her second intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Leader of the House seemed to say that it was up to her to say what Opposition Members should be saying. She complained about the way in which we are debating the motion and the points that we are making. There we have it: the Government are trying not only to destroy democracy and silence their own Back Benchers, but to write the Opposition's script in this place. I hope that, for those who listen to our debates, that demonstrates the contempt in which we are held by a Government whose time has come.

I hope that the performance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was broadcast live in Bromley. It is absolutely crucial that his electors understand what a brilliant representative they have in this place and how wise they would be to return him with an even bigger majority. It was a tour de force. I am quite glad that I was not called immediately after him, as it would have been a very difficult act to follow.

I do not know whether you had the live feed on in your office before you entered the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you did, you would have witnessed a spectacle that the public should see more often. The House was asked to consider a motion, yet the Minister with responsibility for it did not even bother to stand up and explain it. When challenged as to why that was, the right hon. Lady said that it was because of a tradition that such motions went through on the nod—and that coming from a Government who praise the idea of a Modernisation Committee! It was suggested that all that we were doing was "washing up". My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said earlier that the Government were indeed all washed up; that much I agree with. However, I do not agree with the idea that we are just tidying up a few loose ends.

If the Leader of the House were consistent in her train of thought, she could not continue to say that the important thing is to modernise the House, because to appeal to tradition as a reason for not bothering to debate something makes nonsense of the modernisation to which she so often lays claim.

"Times have changed," people keep telling me—but one thing that has not changed is Labour Members' unwillingness to bother to take part in debates—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. One thing that definitely has not changed is the business before the House, and the narrowness of that debate.

Mr. Wilshire

I am grateful to you for making that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it brings me to the fact that it was suggested that there would be another business statement tomorrow. I therefore suggest that another such motion will come before us tomorrow, and that a number of my colleagues will want to make a range of points about it.

May I move on to the motion before us in some detail? I am mystified as to why there is such a last-minute panic. Why have we been asked to consider all these ways of truncating debate and rubber-stamping the business before us? We have known since the last Queen's Speech that the election was coming—and I am sure that the Government knew, too. We have had so little business that it could have been finished long ago—yet now we are being asked to deal with it in such a great rush that we cannot debate it.

In fact, we have had an eight-week delay, because the election was going to be in April, then in May, and now it is to be in June. That was another eight weeks in which we could have done all this, and there would have been no need for the motion before us.

As the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, said, much of the motion concerns spending. We should consider the implications of that for a moment. The ability of this House to control expenditure and the raising of tax is one of the primary reasons why we are here. It is highly significant that those very areas are at risk because of the motion that we are considering.

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. He made another one earlier, about the workings of Standing Order No. 55, and how dreadful it is that we are not allowed to discuss appropriation matters after 10 o'clock. Perhaps I could remind him, and the rest of the House, that although his description of that Standing Order is correct, it was last amended on 20 March 1997, not only under the Government whom he, like all Conservative Members, supported—and in which some of them served—but during what we are now on the record as calling the "wash-up" period of the previous Parliament. At that time, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, the House adjourned earlier than it needed to, and we had a very long election campaign right at the end of a full five-year Parliament.

Mr. Wilshire

I find that an interesting comment. It suggests to me that some Opposition Members are prepared to reflect on the past and see whether we can improve on it, whereas the Government are perfectly happy to fall back, when it suits their convenience, on what happened before. When that does not suit their convenience, they try to stifle democracy by doing other things. I hear what the right hon. Lady said, but that was no sort of a point: it simply left her Government exposed for what they are.

Mr. Bercow

I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will not be deflected from the sound points that he is making. Does he agree that if the House had sat on more Fridays, and had not effectively played truant both in February and over Easter, there would be no need for the unseemly haste with which we are now considering matters?

Mr. Wilshire

My hon. Friend is [...]right, and I sincerely hope that I shall not be deflected by interventions from the Leader of the House.

The motion addresses two fundamental matters that the House should be considering: taxation and expenditure. It took us many years to wrest those issues away from the monarch. In the end, it took a civil war before Parliament obtained the powers that it now has over expenditure.

Mr. Edward Davey

While the hon. Gentleman considers the past and control over public expenditure, will he comment on the fact that not since 1919 has the House rejected an expenditure Question from the Executive?

Mr. Wilshire

I was not here in 1919, so I do not know what debate took place then. If the hon. Gentleman was present, perhaps he will enlighten me later in the Tea Room as to what part he played in the debate.

We are being asked to curtail powers that it took us all that time to get away from the monarch, and that is why we should take this motion seriously Paragraph (1) of the motion states Government business shall have precedence". That means precedence over private Members' business, and that demonstrates the contempt in which the Government hold Back Benchers. Not a single private Member's Bill will have reached the statute book in this Session, despite the lack of Government legislation. Even at the last minute, when that mistake could be remedied, the Government intend to prevent further progress on private Members' Bills.

Paragraph (2) states that the House may continue "until any hour". I raised my concern on that point with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but he was not able to give me an answer. If the Leader of the House would be so kind as to listen to the debate, she might be able to help. My right hon. Friend made the point that the motion would allow us to continue debate on Thursday until any hour. If we continued until half-past nine the following morning, Friday would not exist. My point that if we were able, because of the substance of the debate, to continue beyond that point through Saturday and Sunday, we would arrive at half-past nine on Monday, at which point Monday would not exist. The Government have announced that the Queen has agreed to dissolve Parliament on Monday 14 May, but if the debate continues until 9.30 on Monday morning, that day will not exist. I would like the Leader of the House to tell us whether it is possible to dissolve a Parliament on a day that does not exist. If she cannot give us a satisfactory answer, the only conclusion can be that we will have to have another business motion which we shall have to examine and consider. We might then also lose Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.

Paragraph (3) refers to deferred Divisions, which I considered an abomination when they were introduced. They turn this House into a chat shop, where decisions are not taken on the basis of what has been said in debate but at the convenience of the Government, using us as a rubber stamp. We were told that the introduction of deferred Divisions was part of modernisation, but when it suits the Government's purpose they want to forget all about them. Where is the justice, the fairness, the democracy and the respect for the procedures of the House when the Government say, "When we want to use the House as a rubber stamp by having afternoon Divisions, we will do so, but when it suits us we will forget all that and do things differently"? The Government have made a trap for themselves. Time and again in debates on modernisation, we have told them that they do not know what they are doing. Here is further proof that they do not have a clue what they are doing in the so-called modernisation of the House—and further proof, too, that the Government want the House to be a rubber stamp.

Paragraph (4) refers to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55, which deals with estimates, and states that the normal requirement of two days' notice is not needed at this stage in a Parliament. In fact, no notice is needed at all, and the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is therefore relevant. Even two days' notice makes an informed debate about estimates almost impossible, so how much more stupid is the proposition facing us today? We are blithely asked—without advance notice, additional information or discussion—to rubber-stamp expenditure estimates of £149,381 billion and £144,305 billion, respectively. Sums so vast must cover a range of expenditure that all hon. Members would support, but the details are not available to the House and there is no chance for debate. Paragraph (4) simply makes worse the previous disgraceful actions in regard to estimates, as described by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

Paragraph (5) deals with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill provisions. Again, large sums of money are involved.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The hon. Gentleman's argument might have had some credibility were it not for the motion passed by the previous Government and voted for by him, which was placed before the House on 12 March 1992. It set aside private Members' business, and stipulated that

Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates". The hon. Gentleman should have made his argument in 1992. He is wasting the House's time today.

Mr. Wilshire

It is extraordinary how long it took for that intervention to be made. I had moved on from that point, but the Government are so ill prepared for the debate that they have had to rummage in the files for something to say.

Mr. Forth

Does not my hon. Friend consider it intriguing that a so-called modernising Government

constantly pray in aid what the previous Conservative Government did to legitimise their actions? Is that not evidence of a degree of schizophrenia? Either the Government are modernisers and should reject most of what happened in the past, or they should honour what happened in the past and stick to it. They seem to want it both ways.

Mr. Wilshire

I agree absolutely. Certainly, I shall look at the Hansard record of this debate, and cut out and keep the interventions made by Government Members. From 8 June, those hon. Members will be sitting on the Opposition Benches, and their criticisms of today's debate will be quoted back to them.

Mr. Miller

The hon. Gentleman criticised me for not intervening on him earlier. He has been speaking since 5.14 pm. It is my view, as a democrat, that everyone should be given an opportunity to make their point. However, the hon. Gentleman has been rabbiting on for so long that I thought it time to intervene on him.

Mr. Wilshire

It was very kind of the hon. Gentleman; it gave me a chance to gather my wits about me and check my pages. However, the hon. Gentleman need not fret; this debate can go on until any hour, so I am not depriving him of an opportunity to speak for as long as he wishes if he has anything useful to say about the contempt with which the Government are treating the House.

Mr. Bercow

I am anxious that a hitherto unresolved question should be resolved. My hon. Friend has made a game and stoical effort at penetrating the inner recesses of the mind of the Leader of the House, yet the question still has not been answered. Did the right hon. Lady refrain from proposing the business motion tabled in her name out of a misguided deference to tradition, as is being suggested, or was it because, at the start of the debate, the necessary papers had not been smuggled into the Chamber? Can my hon. Friend answer this important question about the right hon. Lady's motivation for not moving the motion? Was it deference to tradition, was it a free choice, or was it an unavoidable necessity? I would like to know—I am inquisitive and I want an answer.

Mr. Wilshire

I am many things—a few of them good, lots of them bad—but I am not a mind reader. I am therefore unable to oblige my hon. Friend as to what was going on in the mind of the Leader of the House. I am perfectly happy to give way to her if she would like to explain to my hon. Friend something that I am unable to answer on her behalf.

Mrs. Beckett

I do not know why I am bothering, except that anything is better than listening to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I can assure him and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that I had ample briefing material with me. In fairness, perhaps I should enlighten the House: although I said that there was no precedent for this motion being debated in the past 30 years, as far as I am aware there is no precedent, full stop. Only the records for the past 30 years have been checked. As far as I am aware, no Opposition have thought it a valuable [...]se of their time to discuss how long we should discuss business that is of some concern to the people of this country at the winding-up of a Parliament.

The unworthy thought did cross my mind that such a shambles is the Opposition that they might decide to waste the time of the House in this way, as no Opposition before them have seen fit to do. I hoped that I was wrong, but I can assure Conservative Members that I was quite prepared to take part in a debate, was it necessary. On the whole, I concluded that it would not be to the benefit of the House and that it was better to leave the shambles in the hands of those who are so practised at creating it.

Mr. Wilshire

There we have it. The right hon. Lady began her intervention by saying that she did not know why she was bothering. That says everything that needs to be said about the Government's attitude to the House. Why bother? We are not even worthy, in the right hon. Lady's estimation, of an explanation.

The right hon. Lady says that this has never happened before. To that I would say, "Methinks I hear modernisation." She should be congratulating us on that, not complaining about it. I make no apology for having a sensible, considered debate about the matters in this motion which are of such importance to democracy in this Chamber.

Paragraph (5), which deals with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, says much the same as paragraph (4). We will rush through the consolidation part of the Bill and not even bother, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, to have a Second Reading. It gets worse. The paragraph says that notwithstanding the fact that these changes are to be made, Standing Order No. 56, which bans the moving of a committal motion, will apply. So not only do the Government want to get rid of Second Reading and not only do they want us to rubber-stamp the Bill: they want to stop us from committing it to a Committee which might consider it sensibly. That is how much they care.

Some of my colleagues—I forget exactly who—asked what would happen with Lords messages if, on the day, the debates were still continuing. I do not know why my hon. Friends get so excited because, even if we do receive some Lords messages, I have absolutely no doubt that debate on them will be banned by a guillotine motion.

We have before us the type of motion that the House should oppose. The Government have had plenty of time, and they still have time, but we are witnessing a Government who are leaving office exactly as they arrived. They arrived with contempt for Parliament and disdain for democracy. In four years, absolutely nothing has changed. One of their very last acts is once again to try to make a mockery of the House of Commons, of this Parliament, and of the democracy of this country, which has been struggled for for so long. The Minister's refusal even to bother to explain what the motion was about was yet another demonstration of the Government's wish for this Parliament to be a rubber stamp for whatever they want.

The Government's wish to stifle debate in the House should serve as an awful warning to the voters, because if we have another Labour Government we shall witness the completion of their project to turn this country into an elected dictatorship— a dictatorship that they can control at their whim, and in which the House has no part to play. It is a nightmare, and I hope that the electorate notice.

5.46 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

This has been an entertaining debate in which your tolerance has certainly been stretched, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour not to stretch it further. My remarks will be brief and specific and will relate to the matter that I referred to in an intervention much earlier.

I shall attach what I am about to say to paragraph (8) of the motion, which says:

At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May. I shall briefly say why the House should not adjourn, but first I wish to respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honi[...]on (Mrs. Browning) said.

My hon. Friend referred to an earlier intervention about the work of the Modernisation Committee, and said that a future Conservative Government would remove the Modernisation Committee. I would concede that and agree with that only if the work currently carried out by the Modernisation Committee was transferred to the Procedure Committee, which I chair. The Procedure Committee would be very competent and very able to deal with those matters, and such a transfer would remove a Select Committee currently chaired by a very distinguished and, if I may say so, very traditional leading member of the present Labour Government. I admire much of what the right hon. Lady has done, but I believe that much of the Committee's work has now been done, and that the remainder of the work could be transferred to the Procedure Committee. The fact that that Committee is of course chaired by a Back-Bench Member of the House might give its recommendations more status.

Mrs. Browning

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Browning

Of course I cannot make any commitment to my hon. Friend as to personalities who might be leading such Committees. I just wish to clarify for him that matters to do with cha[...]ging the orders and procedures of the House are a matt[...]r for the House, not matters in relation to which the Executive should be controlling events.

Mr. Winterton

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps we can now get back to discussing the motion that is currently before us.

Mr. Winterton

I shall also briefly mention an intervention by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who spoke about the very inadequate way in which the House deals with estimates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Procedure Committee has made recommendations as to how the House should deal with estimates. It has said that the House should devote more time to the granting of money to the Executive.

However, my very brief and specific remarks will relate to the matter that I raised earlier: the non-eligibility of the borough of Macclesfield for the additional Government assistance under the business rate relief scheme. I advance that case because the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to discuss that matter. I speak not only for the borough of Macclesfield but for several other local authorities which hon. Members—I think they are both Opposition and Government Members—believe should be eligible under that scheme.

I shall be extremely brief. More than 90 per cent. of the geographical area of the borough of Macclesfield, which I have had the honour to represent for almost 30 years, is rural and agricultural. Only 2.3 per cent. of the working population of that huge area work in agriculture. So the area meets the population sparsity criteria, which is an important part of the business rate relief scheme.

Let me explain reason why I feel incensed and think it necessary to raise the issue in this debate. I have written to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I have written to and spoken to the Minister for the Environment, the chairman of the taskforce, with whom I have requested a meeting to discuss the matter because my borough has raised it with me. I believe that there should be a statement on the unfairness of the current position before Parliament is dissolved.

I make a plea to the Government, and hope that a reply may be forthcoming from the Leader of the House. As I have said, I have a quiet but deep respect for much of what the right hon. Lady has sought to do. I see that I am angering my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I have worked very closely with the right hon. Lady, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I have done so throughout this Parliament, since she took over from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who chaired the Modernisation Committee at the beginning of this Parliament. I believe that the Leader of the House understands the seriousness of this matter to me and to those whom I represent. If she will assure me that I shall receive a sensible answer as to why Macclesfield is excluded, I shall not press my opposition.

Mrs. Beckett

rose—

Mr. Winterton

Before I give way to the right hon. Lady, may I say that I am all the more incensed, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will know this, because the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is heavily urban and does not have the sparse population of my huge rural area, is eligible for assistance under the scheme. There is an inequity, and I believe that the right hon. Lady believes in justice.

Madam Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has more than made his point, very forcefully.

Mr. Winterton

You have been extremely generous to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall be happy to give way to the Leader of the House, and I hope that she can give me an answer.

Mrs. Beckett

I cannot absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that he will receive an answer with which he will be content, but I can certainly undertake to ensure that he receives an answer.

Mr. Winterton

I simply ask the right hon. Lady to explain why Ellesmere Port and Neston, the City of Chester and perhaps Crewe and Nantwich, which has huge urban areas—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been given considerable latitude and, indeed, a reply to his request.

Mr. Winterton

You are indeed charming, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have been extremely patient and very gracious. I have got my point across. May I say that I do not seek to abuse the rules and procedures of the House? Far be it from me, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee to do so, but all hon. Members, of whichever party, have a duty and responsibility to represent their constituents, which I have sought to do. I rest my case, but I hope that I receive an answer from whoever responds to the debate—and I shall be delighted if the Leader of the House does so.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 321,Noes 1.

Division No.205]	[5.54pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Chaytor, David
Alexander, Douglas	Chidgey, David
Allan, Richard	Clapham, Michael
Allen, Graham	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
(Swansea E)	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Atkins, Charlotte	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Austin, John	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Bailey, Adrian	Clelland, David
Baker, Norman	Clwyd, Ann
Ballard, Jackie	Coaker, Vernon
Banks, Tony	Coffey, Ms Ann
Barnes, Harry	Cohen, Harry
Barron, Kevin	Connarty, Michael
Battle, John	Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Bayley, Hugh	Cooper, Yvette
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Corbett, Robin
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Corbyn, Jeremy
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Corston, Jean
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Cotter, Brian
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Cousins, Jim
Bennett, Andrew F	Cox, Tom
Benton, Joe	Cranston, Ross
Bermingham, Gerald	Crausby, David
Berry, Roger	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Betts, Clive	Cummings, John
Blackman, Liz	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Blizzard, Bob	(Copeland)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)	Darvill, Keith
Brake, Tom	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Brand, Dr Peter	Davidson, Ian
Breed, Colin	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Browne, Desmond	Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Buck, Ms Karen	(B'ham Hodge H)
Burden, Richard	Denham, Rt Hon John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Dobbin, Jim
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Donohoe, Brian H
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Doran, Frank
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Dowd, Jim
(NE Fife)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Cann, Jamie	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Caplin, Ivor	Efford, Clive
Caton, Martin	Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff	Khabra, Piara S
Etherington, Bill	Kilfoyle, Peter
Fearn, Ronnie	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Kirkwood, Archy
Fisher, Mark	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lammy, David
Flint, Caroline	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Follett, Barbara	Laxton, Bob
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Lepper, David
Fyfe, Maria	Levitt, Tom
Galbraith, Sam	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Gapes, Mike	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Gardiner, Barry	Linton, Martin
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)	Livsey, Richard
Gerrard, Neil	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Gibson, Dr Ian	Llwyd, Elfyn
Gidley, Sandra	Lock, David
Godman, Dr Norman A	McAllion, John
Godsiff, Roger	McAvoy, Thomas
Goggins, Paul	McCabe, Steve
Golding, Mrs Llin	McDonagh, Siobhain
Gorrie, Donald	Macdonald, Calum
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	McDonnell, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McFall, John
Hain, Peter	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McIsaac, Shona
Hancock, Mike	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Hanson, David	Mackinlay, Andrew
Harris, Dr Evan	McNamara, Kevin
Harvey, Nick	McNulty, Tony
Healey, John	MacShane, Denis
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	McWalter, Tony
Hendrick, Mark	McWilliam, John
Heppell, John	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hill, Keith	Mallaber, Judy
Hinchliffe, David	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hood, Jimmy	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hope, Phil	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hopkins, Kelvin	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)	Martlew, Eric
Howarth, George (Knowsle[...] N)	Maxton, John
Howells, Dr Kim	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre[...]ford)	Merron, Gillian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Miller, Andrew
Hutton, John	Mitchell, Austin
Iddon, Dr Brian	Moffatt, Laura
Illsley, Eric	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Moran, Ms Margaret
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Ham[...]stead)	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Jenkins, Brian	Mudie, George
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Oaten, Mark
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Olner, Bill
Jones, Ms Jenny	O'Neill, Martin
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Öpik, Lembit
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Pendry, Rt Hon Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Pike, Peter L
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Pond, Chris
Joyce, Eric	Pope, Greg
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pound, Stephen
Keeble, Ms Sally	Powell, Sir Raymond
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isl[...]worth)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Keetch, Paul	Primarolo, Dawn
Kelly, Ms Ruth	Prosser, Gwyn
Kemp, Fraser	Purchase, Ken
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Quinn, Lawrie	Stringer, Graham
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Rammell, Bill	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	(Dewsbury)
Rendel, David	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Robertson, John	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
(Glasgow Anniesland)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Temple-Morris, Peter
Rogers, Allan	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Timms, stephen
Rooney, Terry	Todd, Mark
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Touhig, Don
Rowlands, Ted	Trickett, Jon
Roy, Frank	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Ruane, Chris	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Ruddock, Joan	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Tyler, Paul
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Tynan, Bill
Salter, Martin	Vis, Dr Rudi
Sarwar, Mohammad	Walley, Ms Joan
Savidge, Malcolm	Ward, Ms Claire
sedgemore, Brian	Wareing Robert N
Shaw, Jonathan	Watts, David
Sheerman, Barry	Webb, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Shipley, Ms Debra	Wicks, Malcolm
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Williams Rt Hon Alan
Skinner, Dennis	(Swansea W)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Willis, Phil
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Wilson, Brian
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Winnick, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)	Wood, Mike
Soley, Clive	Woodward, Shaun
Southworth, Ms Helen	Worthington, Tony
Spellar, John	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Squire, Ms Rachel	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Wyatt, Derek
Steinberg, Gerry
Stevenson, George	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Mr. Ian Pearson and
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Mr. Mike Hall.

NOES
McCrea, Dr William	Tellers for the Noes:
	Mr. David Wilshire and
	Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

1. (1) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [23rd January] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence;
2. (2) At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;
3. (3) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Standing Order No. 38 shall apply and the Order [7th November 2000] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question;
4. (4) At this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion relating to Estimates 2001–02;
5. (5) At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply;
6. (6) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;
7. (7) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and
8. (8) At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.