House of Commons
Friday 7 March 2003
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), Sir Alan Haselhurst, The Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the table.
9.33 am
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At business questions yesterday there was some speculation that the House might find it necessary to sit on Saturday 15 March. There is certainly a precedent for that; the House did sit on a Saturday morning with the onset of hostilities at the start of the Falklands war. You will be more aware than most that hon. Members on both sides of the House regard weekends as an opportunity to carry out constituency business and that diaries have to be organised. Nevertheless, there can be nothing more important to Members of the House than the commitment of our troops to war.
It seems likely that by the end of this coming week there may well have been a United Nations resolution, and it is possible that hostilities might have commenced even by Saturday week. Could you please therefore tell the House how much notice the Government are required to give, and how much notice Members might expect, prior to a sitting on Saturday 15 March?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he would raise this matter. I realise its importance to all hon. Members. Chapter 14 of "Erskine May" is instructive. There are only two ways in which the House can meet on a Saturday. One is if the House itself resolves to do so, which obviously requires a motion to be put before the House at some point. That is plainly a matter for the House and not for the Chair. The other is if the House, having adjourned to the following week, is recalled under Standing Order No. 13 at the instance of the Government and with the agreement of Mr. Speaker. That procedure would only arise in a situation of great urgency, and clearly it would not be possible to give advance notice in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I think that that is the best summation of the situation that I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is very helpful and I am sure that the House is very grateful for that, but could you just remind the House and Members
of the timeline, as I think we call it these days, of how these events might unfold? In other words, what is the latest time at which the Government would have to table a motion for the House to consider in order for it to be able to sit on Saturday? I think that it would be very helpful if we had some idea of that—not only we as Members but all officers and staff as well—so that preparations could be properly made. I am sure, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), that this is at the very front of all our minds, and it would be very helpful if we could have some idea of the sort of time sequence that might be envisaged and, to put it bluntly, how late the Government could leave it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the alternative scenario of a motion being put before the House, as I understand it that would have to be tabled on the Thursday immediately before the Saturday on which it might be proposed to recall the House.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that there seems to be a significantly large number of Members on the Opposition Benches: far more than one can normally expect to see on a Friday, who one can usually count on one's fingers. I could be flattered and say that they have come for the extra special treat of hearing me speak on a Friday, should I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand from what I heard from a Conservative Member yesterday that the Conservative leadership have put a three-line Whip on today, and I am shocked—
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): And outraged.
Mr. Dismore: And outraged to hear that the Conservative party put a Whip on for private Members' business. This is a private Members' day; it is not an occasion for whipped business. Perhaps you could give guidance to those Members who may have come here under the false impression that they were on the Whip to do so, that they are free to leave if they do not wish to hear my speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Happily, this is not a matter for the Chair, but it is always a pleasure for the occupant of the Chair to see the House well populated, just as I am sure it is an assurance to the nation as a whole.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek some guidance in terms of the proceedings on which we are about to embark. I went to the Vote Office to seek explanatory notes for today's business and I found that no explanatory notes had been published. I wonder whether you could advise the House as to whether we are in a position to proceed in the absence of those notes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is absolutely no requirement for an explanatory memorandum to be provided for a private Member's Bill. There is nothing unusual about the situation with which the House is—[Interruption.] Order. There is nothing unusual about the situation with which the House is faced.
Orders of the Day
Retirement Income Reform Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to announce that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
9.39 am
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Although perhaps unusual, a touch of humility and candour from a Member of Parliament would not go amiss at this stage—particularly from this one. I am not sure whether I can feel the heavy hand of history on my shoulder as I move my Bill on Second Reading, but history has a habit of repeating itself. The Bill is not my idea: it is an almost exact replica of the Pension Annuities (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in 2002, and it is very closely related to the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) the year before.
The difference between my hon. Friends and myself is that they—through the application of their powerful intellects, industry, experience and pre-existing knowledge—were able to inform the House in a coherent fashion of what lay behind their Bills and why it was necessary and in the public interest to amend this aspect of pensions law. I will do my best, on this third occasion—perhaps ineptly and, I hope, briefly—to persuade the House that the policy behind the Bill is worthwhile and sensible and that the Bill itself is worthy of support.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): I am very pleased that the promoter of the Bill has said that he wishes to present his ideas as succinctly and briefly as possible. Perhaps the Government have a plan to try to talk out the Bill today, thus preventing the House from reaching a decision on it and, equally importantly, on the Pensions (Winding-Up) Bill, which I hope to introduce a little later. Perhaps the Whips will rejoice that their schemes have met with short-term success, but does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that those of our constituents for whom the greatest worry, apart from the war, is that their pension promise is being snatched away from them may have very different views about parliamentary procedure and those who are behind it if they attempt to prevent the House reaching decisions on the first, second and third Bills on the Order Paper today?
Mr. Garnier: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The one shred of comfort that I will draw from today's proceedings if they are unsuccessful is that I have all-party support for the Bill and particularly the support of the right hon. Gentleman, whose reputation in this field is unsurpassed. I hope that, if not the Financial Secretary,
at least the men Friday who sit all around her will pay some attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his success in the private Members' Bill ballot. Earlier, on a point of order, I sought to find out about the Bill's explanatory notes, and one of the reasons why I wanted to explore that was the status of recent correspondence that I and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman have received from the Association of British Insurers with regard to the consumer survey that it has undertaken on such issues. The hon. and learned Gentleman would help me to understand the purpose of the Bill better if he could tell me whether he has received that correspondence and what his reaction to it is in relation to the Bill?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |