Business of the House (Hansard, 18 July 2002)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
I beg to move,
That, at the sitting on Monday 22nd July, the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and the Motion shall then lapse. I have just dropped my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I doubt that it will be very helpful anyway.
It is not my job to answer points of order, but perhaps I can respond to the contents of some of the points that were raised. I defer to your better judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to what the impact would be if anyone were to call for a Division on the motion. I hope that no one does, as the motion is an attempt to guarantee that Monday's summer recess Adjournment debate is guaranteed three hours. That debate is valued by hon. Members of all parties, and none of them would want to risk letting the other business that the House has to conduct on Monday eat into the time set aside for it.
I do not know what would happen if the motion were to be pressed to a vote—which, as you rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be subject to a deferred Division on Wednesday evening. I defer to your wisdom and advice on procedural matters, but my guess is that the implication would be that there would be no guarantee that the summer recess Adjournment debate would get three hours.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
This is a fine mess, is it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In some ways, the benefit to the House is that we have identified an apparent flaw in the ghastly deferred Division process. I hope that, at the very least, that further thought will be given to what some of us argued from the start was a nonsense and an anomaly.
However, that is for another day. We are now debating the substance of the motion, and I am delighted—it takes me back to the good old days—that we can do so until any hour. That is only right, as the motion raises a number of important issues.
First, why is the motion necessary at all? The answer is readily available. Exchanges earlier today at business questions—to which I made a modest contribution—made it clear that the Government are overloading the House's business for next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to a ridiculous and unacceptable degree. Further, for some reason the Government have decided that the summer Adjournment debate must happen on Monday, when there is other substantial business to be disposed of.
The Minister, in his usual open and engaging way, has said that he is here only to protect the summer Adjournment debate, but from what? The answer is that it has to be protected from the Government, as it is they who are putting pressure on the time available for that debate.

§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As usual, he is being extremely reasonable, but is not the situation worse than he 540 suggests? By scheduling the summer Adjournment debate for two days before term ends, is not the Leader of the House still further undermining the topicality of that, which was supposed to be one of the gems of the so-called reforms?

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As ever. he has anticipated one of the many points that I intend to make. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall return to the question why the Adjournment debate should not be held on Monday. First, I shall plough through some of the other points that I am determined to make.
The next question is why only three hours are to be allocated to the Adjournment debate. The House has become accustomed to the fact that we often have a whole day on the end-of-term Adjournment debate, precisely for the reason that my hon. Friend points out. Those debates are often fully subscribed, because they are one of the rare occasions when right hon. and hon. Members can raise constituency or policy matters in the House and explore them in a relatively relaxed way—something that we all value highly.

§ Bob Spink (Castle Point)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. A number of usual suspects attend the Adjournment debates—I am one of them. There are usually 20 to 30 of us. We like to air important topical issues that concern our constituencies. The debates are an important part of the annual parliamentary diary, and it would be outrageous for the Government to seek to curtail the power of individual MPs to bring before the House matters that concern them in their constituencies.

§ Mr. Forth
A number of unusual suspects also turn up for the debates, in my experience. My hon. Friend makes a proper point: why only three hours? If the Minister boasts, as he did a few moments ago, that the motion was a benign move to protect the business, and that the Government were generously giving the House a whole three hours for the Adjournment debate, the obvious question to the Minister, which I hope he can answer, is why are the Government giving us only three hours? Why can we not have five hours or even more than that?

§ Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)
Can my right hon. Friend assist me as a relative newcomer to this place, and tell me whether there are any conventions about the length of speeches that might be made from the Back Benches or from the Front Benches in that important debate? I certainly have a number of issues that I should like to deal with at some length, were I lucky enough to catch the Speaker's eye on that occasion.

§ Mr. Forth
It is fair to say that the Speaker has never yet exercised his prerogative to limit the time for such speeches. The debate is one of the occasions on which the House exercises its own self-discipline, and admirably so. Hon. Members can come along and make brief or occasionally not-so-brief contributions, depending on the importance of the subject matter.

§ David Burnside (South Antrim)
As a relative newcomer who is gaining a little experience, I spoke in the Adjournment debate at the end of the last Session. My party and right hon. and hon. Members are expecting a very important statement from the Prime Minister by 541 24 July—the day the House plans to rise. It may be in response to a question, or it may be a statement followed by a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the state of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I had hoped to have an opportunity in the Adjournment debate to comment on behalf of my constituents on a very important statement on Northern Ireland. Why are we having the Adjournment debate on Monday, rather than at the end of the Session on Wednesday?

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which relates to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) a few moments ago: why choose Monday? Is that a cock-up or a conspiracy? We keep having to ask that question about the Government. I suspect that in this case, it is probably a bit of both. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) rather indicate that the Government may have something to hide, or that there is something of which they are afraid, and that they want to get the Adjournment debate tucked neatly out of the way on Monday, before hon. Members start worrying about such an important matter.

§ Mr. George Osborne (Tatton)
As a relative newcomer, may I draw on my right hon. Friend's experience in the House? On how many occasions can he recall the Adjournment debate not being on the last day of the parliamentary term?

§ Mr. Forth
I would say, at a guess, that that is pretty unusual; the convention has been that such debates are held at the end of term, so why are we forced to hold the debate on Monday? The Government have got us and themselves into difficulty by insisting that the debate take place on Monday, rather than on Tuesday or Wednesday. That brings me to another point altogether: why choose Monday, Tuesday or even Wednesday?
Earlier today in a different context, we said that the Opposition would be more than happy, even at this late date, if the business managers suggested that the House may want to sit for an extra day or two to debate, for example, foot and mouth disease matters or, as we now discover, to have a proper, full-day Adjournment debate. What is wrong with that? Why are the Government in such indecent haste for the House to rise for the summer recess when it is now becoming perfectly obvious that there are more and more important matters to be dealt with?

§ Bob Spink
Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. There is good reason for the motion. It is not a cock-up, but a conspiracy because an important announcement will be made on Tuesday regarding airport planning in south-east England. I am sure that a number of hon. Members, including myself and those with constituencies in Southend and Kent and even Labour Members, such as the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Basildon (Angela Smith), may wish to raise that issue on the Adjournment. So I agree with my right hon. Friend. Why should not the House sit for an extra day on Thursday to debate those important matters?

§ Mr. Forth
We are now getting to the bottom of things, which shows the value of such debates, does it not?—as 542 if we needed to demonstrate the value of debate. We are now beginning to shine some light on the fact that the Government hope and expect to get that rather inconvenient Adjournment debate out of the way on Monday and then some very controversial and important matters will be brought before the House in statements on Tuesday and Wednesday. However, there will be no opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to consider those matters further and perhaps in more detail in the Adjournment debate, which we would normally expect to occur at the very end of term. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer another question when this debate finally finishes, which, given the level of interest that I detect in the Chamber, may yet take some little time.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions a conspiracy. We are told that there are no such things as conspiracies, but I have worked out my own theory: some conspiracies are moved on by cock-ups. Perhaps that is what has happened. However, there is a more serious aspect. Is it because the Government have such a large majority that they believe that they can do anything without considering any opposition? Is there not a possibility that a precedent will be set? In future, we may be asked to take such a decision about something other than the Adjournment debate. We must look very carefully at the procedures of the House so that such things do not happen again.

§ Mr. Forth
Of course my hon. Friend, who has great experience in the House, puts his finger on the problem. I wish that we could look at the procedures again. In fact, I think that we will be forced to do so, because the truth is that we have now discovered a flaw in the deferred Division process that will have to be considered and sorted out pretty quickly.
I certainly will ask for my hon. Friends' support in opposing the motion at the end of the debate, if only to find out what will happen as a result. Unless the Minister gives us a very satisfactory explanation for the questions that I have asked, I am not inclined to agree to the motion any way. We have a series of questions. Why only three hours? Why on Monday? Why cannot we sit for an extra day to allow the Adjournment debate to be a proper length?

§ Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)
If we are to provide such an opportunity for hon. Members, should we not even consider starting at half-past 9 on Wednesday to afford more time at the end of the day?

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that constructive suggestion. We are full of constructive suggestions, and I hope that the Minister has been listening to them because we are trying to be helpful. However, the Government probably do not want to be helped in this case.
I wish to make a final point. If we allow this motion to go through unchallenged this evening, what worries me is that it will give the Government the idea that they can start to bring these Adjournment debates further and further forward, and bring on unpleasant and controversial business afterwards, thus denying Members the opportunity to use the Adjournment debate further to explore the unpleasant matters that the Government hope 543 to conceal or semi-conceal. The motion has therefore turned out to be a nasty little measure. Furthermore, it has turned out to be flawed. The procedure is flawed, and the Government have put the House in an absurd position. Somehow, we must work our way out of it.
I hope that the Minister will he able to give some helpful responses, but, nevertheless, we owe it to ourselves and to the House not to agree to the motion in the terms in which it is put. We can, therefore, force a review of the procedure and find out what is the truth behind it: is it a conspiracy or sheer incompetence? In that respect, it will have served one purpose, if nothing else.

§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
I want to say two things. First, I was distressed and saddened that the Minister, in his introductory remarks, failed to justify the terms of this particular motion. He could see that Members were troubled—they were rising on points of order—and he even told the House that he did not think that his remarks would be of much use anyway. He failed to explain to us the construction of the business now before us.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was entirely right to point out that, traditionally, this Adjournment debate has run for more than three hours. I totted up the subjects for debate had I wanted to participate in it—I still have not made up my mind on that. There are questions to deal with in relation to the Eurofighter, the lack of computerised tomography scanners in our local hospital, the state of the west coast main line, the state of agriculture in the north-west, some remarks on Uganda and India, the delivery of public services, the use of laptop computers in Committees of the House, and a matter concerning taxation. I could have happily occupied 100 minutes on those subjects. Given that only three hours may be available, I would not do so in the interests of other Members. As many subjects could be raised, however, I hope that when the Minister winds up this debate, he will explain the paucity of time and the mess of this motion.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I hope that I can help right hon. and hon. Members with the questions that they have raised. I did not mean to be rude to any hon. Member, as I thought that there would be an opportunity to make points anyway, and that I would reply to them in my answers now.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked, as did other Members in interventions, why this motion is necessary. We believe that it is necessary if Members on both sides of the House want to guarantee that there will be three hours for the Adjournment debate on the recess. The consequence of not passing the motion may be that we have longer, but it may also be that we have shorter, or even no time at all.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were being over-burdened on Monday. We have two other main pieces of business to consider on Monday. One is the Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill, which I hope 544 that all Members accept is important. It is not terribly contentious, and it should not take up too much of the House's time.

§ Mr. Forth
It might.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says from a sedentary position, however, it might, which is exactly why the Government are bringing this business motion to the House today. If the debate goes on for some time, the motion will guarantee that the Adjournment debate on the recess has at least three hours.
The other piece of business that we must consider on Monday is the debate on the restructuring of Select Committees. Again, that is an important piece of business, and I would expect Members on both sides of the House to feel that we need to get on with it, so that the Committees can get on with their work. It should not be too contentious, but one never knows. There has been debate on it in the past, and that is why the Government want to make sure that, in the event that those debates run on, we have three hours for the Adjournment debate.

§ Bob Spink
rose—

§ Mr. Bradshaw
If I do not address the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise, I will give way to him in a second.
Let me address the issue of the three-hour limit. It is not the tradition for the House to have an Adjournment debate that is longer than three hours. Between 1982 and 1995—so for the vast majority of the time of the previous Conservative Government—there was a three-hour limit on the debate.

§ Bob Spink
If I can correct the Minister, three important items will be discussed on Monday. The Adjournment debate at the end of our proceedings is on education in Castle Point.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I accept that that is an important issue for him and his constituents.

§ Mr. Forth
For the sake of completeness, the Minister will know that the Leader of the House told us—rather unusually, but I am grateful to him—that there will be a statement on Monday on the Anderson report on foot and mouth, which I suspect the Chair will allow to run for some time. So there is a substantial statement, a Second Reading, which could be controversial—we never know in advance—and at least one political party will have a lot to say about setting up Select Committees because it is annoyed that it is not chairing at least one of them.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
We will face those issues on Monday, but they demonstrate why the Government are so keen to protect the three hours for the Adjournment debate on the recess. I know how much the right hon. Gentleman likes to sit late in the House and if the motion is passed we can sit into the early hours of Tuesday morning to 1.30 am. If we do not pass it we might have no debate on the Adjournment and the business will finish at 10 pm.
I have dealt with the three-hour limit. It was in place in the House between 1982 and 1995. It only changed when the Adjournment debate on the recess was moved 545 to Wednesday mornings. Hon. Members will be aware that that has been discontinued because of the introduction of Westminster Hall debates. It is also not the case that the Adjournment debate on the recess has always taken place on the last day of Parliament. We have allocated time on Monday for it because we will be busy on Wednesday receiving messages from the Lords, which might mean sitting late into the night.
The motion is not about a conspiracy or, dare I say it, cock-ups. It is simply about trying to ensure for the convenience of hon. Members that the traditional end of term Adjournment debate, which they value so highly, is protected. I hope that hon. Members support the motion.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)
The Question is as on the Order Paper.

Hon. Members
No.