---

Mr. Forth: Indeed. That is probably one of the most sinister aspects of this piece of Government deviousness and jiggery-pokery.

In the normal course of events, the legislative process requires that when a message comes to us from another place, we can do what we did earlier this evening. We should be able to deliberate on the message, and then table amendments that may or may not be selected and subsequently debated. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, none of that may be possible if the mechanism proposed in the motion is approved this evening.

We could find ourselves in an invidious position. No doubt the Government would be very comfortable with it: no doubt it is exactly what they want. I suggest that now they have got themselves into such a mess, and with messages coming from the other place in such a way, the last thing they want is for Members--their own, for all I know: not necessarily Opposition Members--to look at what is arriving here, and to decide whether they want to table amendments.

Mr. Bercow: If we are to know the extent of the constraints that we may face, we surely need to know the extent of the legislative consideration that the Government envisage. Given the mauling received by the Disqualifications Bill in another place, is not a Lords message in relation to that a real possibility? In that event, would not extensive consideration be required?

Mr. Forth: That must be so, although my judgment is different from my hon. Friend's: I suspect that the Disqualifications Bill might not come in our direction. We do not know, however, because the Minister has not shared any of these governmental secrets with us.

I am keeping an eye on the Government's Deputy Chief Whip, who seems to be haranguing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not want to interrupt, but Mr. Speaker recently deprecated the practice of Members' going to the side of the Chair and haranguing its occupants. I know that you would not stand for any of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker--especially from the Deputy Chief Whip.

Another question arises, which the motion does not begin to answer: no time limit is placed on the mechanism that it proposes. The motion suggests--indeed, mandates--that

the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.

We know how late their Lordships have had to sit recently, given the mess that the Government's legislative programme is in and the excess of legislation and Government amendments in another place. It is fairly simple to deduce, in view of recent experience, that the House of Commons may be required not to adjourn until some very late hour. That raises another question: is it incumbent on Members to be available until that hour, or would the Government want us all to go home so that

22 Nov 2000 : Column 378

some sinister process could take place late at night when we were all elsewhere, and not present to try to slip in an amendment even if we were able to do so?

It gets worse. It is not just that we might not be able to do that for reasons of timing. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Government encourage Members to stay on the premises and to be alert to what was happening, or would we be told that we should all go home? That would leave us in a very odd position, which the public would not understand.

Will the cameras be switched on, showing the Chamber? How will the process work? How will the messages come? Will one of the Whips, with his wand, present the messages to an empty House, and will it be apparent by that stage that all Members have long since gone home? These are important questions, because they bear on whether Members will have a realistic opportunity to table amendments to the messages.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has raised a serious point. It is desirable for Members to be available, in order to know what the messages are. Does that not reinforce the value of my suggestion that we should fill the idle hours, as it were, with substantive debates, so that Members are present, interested in the business of the House and ready to receive the messages because they will have something to discuss?

Mr. Forth: Indeed--and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion is so helpful. It answers the point so often spuriously made by Labour Members that we do not have enough time to debate all the matters that we want to debate. That is one of the completely invalid reasons that the Government gave for the nonsense of Westminster Hall. Hot on the heels of the endorsement of Westminster Hall that we gave so misguidedly the other day, an opportunity has arisen for the first time. Were we to avail ourselves of that opportunity, we would have extra time for debate.

Having taken advice, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it was well within the Government's power to table a business motion to give effect to that. We have heard nothing from the Minister, but I hope that he will rise to the challenge later.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is clearly quite knowledgeable about these matters. Can he help me out?

What will be the status of the Adjournment debate? Will it be taken first, and will the House then be in suspended animation until a message is received before adjourning? Or will the House be suspended, receive a message, decide to adjourn, and then have the Adjournment debate? In the latter event, we might have half an hour in which to table amendments.

Mr. Forth: That is a possibility, but I do not want to give my right hon. Friend advice off the cuff, and I am sure that he would not wish me to guess on my feet--which, of course, I would not dream of doing. I will, however, allow myself to go so far as to speculate--unless you advise me otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker--that the motion raises an intriguing possibility. If normal business has been concluded, whether under a guillotine or not, and if the House does not adjourn until a message comes, it

22 Nov 2000 : Column 379

might be possible for the Adjournment debate to proceed throughout the period between the completion of normal business and the arrival of the message.

Perhaps such a possibility would help my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If we cannot debate a Government business motion, as he suggested, perhaps there could be, in the usual manner, albeit only on one pre-determined subject, a much lengthier Adjournment debate between the end of business and receipt of the message.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the Government could propose a general subject for debate on the Adjournment, rather like the old Consolidated Fund Bill or Christmas Adjournment debates. Such a debate would enable hon. Members, during otherwise wasted hours, to speak on any subject that they may have in mind.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a typically helpful suggestion--which, procedurally, would probably be do-able. However, if it were not do-able and the Government were not to accept it, and were we to be misguided enough to give the Government the carte blanche suggested in the motion--I hope that we do not; I shall certainly oppose it unless the Minister gives me much better reasons than he has so far--it may be that all we can salvage out of this episode is a series of intriguingly prolonged Adjournment debates on subjects that had already been accepted for debate in the usual way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already heard sufficient argument on that particular subject.

Mr. Forth: I was contemplating concluding my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you may have hurried me a little along the way.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not trying to prolong my remarks.

Mr. Maclean: Certainly not, as I hope that I might be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course.

Earlier, my right hon. Friend commented briefly on the proposal that there would be no voting after 10 o'clock and said that he would deal with that proposal later. As far as I can recall, he has failed to do that. I thought that it was a valid point that was relevant to the motion.

Mr. Forth: Because I am a generous chap, I shall voluntarily leave my right hon. Friend to elaborate on that point. Although I have oodles more material, I sense that I might be testing the patience of the House--[Hon. Members: "No."] Frankly, if looks could kill, the type of look that I am getting from the Government Deputy Chief Whip would have rendered me a corpse long ago. I do not think that I should push my luck too far. I certainly would not comment on your demeanour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as that would be way out of order.

I want just to make one final point. If the Minister were to answer only one question from me, I hope that it would be this. Can he undertake that if the House agrees to the

22 Nov 2000 : Column 380

motion today, he will guarantee that there is proper opportunity for hon. Members to table amendments to the content of messages from another place? Will he also spell that out to the House in advance, so that we all know how that can be done and we can be reassured that no subterfuge is involved? That is my main request to the Minister. However, unless he does a lot better than he has so far to persuade me, I really feel that I cannot support the resolution.

---