| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.28 pm
Mr. Coaker: It has come as some surprise not only to me but to all hon. Members—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
Mr. Coaker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Precisely. It is not usual to make a complete reply to a debate on Third Reading, but if the Minister wants to make the odd observation, that will be in order.
Mr. Coaker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I shall make a few remarks. I reciprocate the warm appreciation that I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing who, along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers, has assisted and advised me. I also thank the hon. Members for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Taunton (Mr. Browne) for their kind words. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to say thank you to everyone.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Tajikistan) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved. —[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 23rd October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than Ten o’clock or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
That, at the sitting on Thursday 25th October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to:-
(a) Modernisation of the House of Commons;
(b) Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders);
(c) Procedure;
(d) Procedure (Changes to Standing Orders); and
(e) European Standing Committees (Temporary Nomination)
not later than Five o’clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. —[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]
Sittings of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) at the sittings on Monday 29th and Tuesday 30th October, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported;
(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 30th October, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners; and
(3) on Tuesday 30th October, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.— [ Mr. Nicholas Brown .]
9.30 pm
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I want to object to motion 6 on the Order Paper, because it has not been properly explained to the House why we should lose up to four and a half hours of parliamentary airtime in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 30 October. It may well be known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at what time Her Majesty may wish to prorogue her Parliament, but it is certainly not known to me, and I suggest that it is not known to other hon. Members.
It seems to be a regular feature of the last days of any parliamentary Session that the Government introduce a motion to suspend all sittings in Westminster Hall on the last day of operations. I am sure that I am not alone in regarding the debates that take place in Westminster Hall as an extremely important part of the parliamentary process. Typically, Tuesday sittings in Westminster Hall start at 9.30 am and run through until 2 pm, and, typically, there are two one-and-a-half-hour debates and then a series of half-hour debates on topics of interest to Members of Parliament who have applied to Mr. Speaker to debate those topics. I have been fortunate enough to take advantage of that procedure and have used valuable parliamentary airtime as a result, with the appropriate Minister in attendance to listen to my concerns as a constituency Member of Parliament and to respond in due course.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to obtain a slot to raise an important constituency issue? Quite often—it has happened this week—I am unlucky in the ballot, so reducing the number of days for debate is rather unfortunate.
Mr. Hollobone: I concur with my hon. Friend, who has taken advantage of the debating time available in Westminster Hall. He is assiduous in his applications to secure such debates, and sadly, like most of us, he is often unsuccessful. However, the fact that he is a persistent applier for such debates means that he has secured a number of important debates in order to represent the concerns of his constituents. Back Benchers will be denied that opportunity on Tuesday 30 October if motion 6 on the Order Paper is agreed.
Motion 6 does not sit at all comfortably with motion 5 on the Order Paper, which relates to the business of the House. This House has just agreed that we will discuss on Thursday 25 October a number of important motions, the main aim of which is to increase opportunities for Back Benchers to influence
how the House operates. However, motion 6 on the Order Paper seeks to delete four and a half hours of parliamentary airtime, which is vital to Back Benchers for putting the interests of their constituents.
I do not know the proposed timing of prorogation on Tuesday 30 October. However, I know that the parliamentary agenda, which we all follow, states under the heading “Business for the period ending on Tuesday 30th October”:
“Includes the business announced by the Leader of the House (which may be changed up to the rising of the House on the day before it is to be taken and is therefore provisional).”
I understand that the agenda is provisional, but it gives the impression that on Tuesday 30 October the first item of business will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health. Health questions are an important parliamentary opportunity for my constituents, whom I do my best to represent, and I hope that they take place on that date.
Mr. Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Is he aware that yet again the parliamentary calendar has been shortened, so that we are sitting for fewer days than before? How could it be right for a question time to be cut? If, however, there is to be a question time, there will obviously be time for a Westminster Hall debate.
Mr. Hollobone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that incisive observation. Given the provisional agenda, my understanding is that on Tuesday 30 October the House will meet, as normal, at 2.30 pm, and that the first item of business will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health. I, for one, look forward to the opportunity to ask him questions about health issues in Kettering, not least because there is a lot of concern there about the large number of hospital-acquired infections. I was unfortunate in not being able to put such points to the Secretary of State on his statement last week, owing to the great interest in the subject in the Chamber.
If I am right and the House is due to meet on Tuesday 30 October, presumably the Westminster Hall sittings, which typically start on Tuesdays at 9.30 am and end at 2 pm, will also take place—four and a half hours of valuable parliamentary airtime. Yet motion 6(3) on the Order Paper cancels all that. That is not the first time; increasingly, the Government seek to erase Westminster Hall business at the end of every Session.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, attach great importance to Westminster Hall debates because it is only with your gracious permission that we can have them in the first place. I am grateful for the number of opportunities that you have given me, as the Member for Kettering, to raise topics of great importance to my constituents—not least this week, when you gave me permission for a debate on the control of illegal immigrants; I look forward to holding the Minister for Borders and Immigration to account for recent incidents in Northamptonshire in respect of that issue.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab):
I do not necessarily oppose what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that the time will come when the Opposition will
join in consideration of the whole question of sittings—not least, the long, unnecessary and unjustified summer recess. However, does he not accept that until the change of Government in 1997 there were no Westminster Hall debates? They arose from the Modernisation Committee, set up in 1997, after it considered ways in which Back Benchers could have more time to debate issues. The whole Westminster Hall structure came about under a Labour Government.
Mr. Hollobone: I am most grateful for that intervention. I am a great believer in giving credit where credit is due, and that reform was overdue and welcome. Like me, the hon. Gentleman has taken advantage of the opportunities that Westminster Hall presents. I also share his concern about the very long summer recess that the House of Commons undergoes. Like him, I have supported motions proposing that this House come back during September to discuss items of concern. These two matters are related. Those of us who want a shorter summer recess want to have more parliamentary airtime to put across the concerns of our constituents to the Ministers who are responsible for these matters. Yet we have on the Order Paper a Government motion to deprive this House of four and half hours of valuable parliamentary airtime. I object to that.
I understand that on a Tuesday the other place meets at 2.30 pm—the same time as this Chamber. It would be far more sensible if both Houses met at 2.30 pm on Tuesday 30 October, followed in this place by an hour’s questions to the Department of Health, by which time the other House could have decided the timetable for Prorogation. If, at that point, there were no further Lords messages to be received in this Chamber, that would be a sensible time to prorogue. Importantly, in relation to paragraph (3) of the motion, it would also allow for a full Tuesday morning’s activity in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Bone: In my constituency, there is a huge problem with people going blind because of age-related macular degeneration. I will submit a question for that day, and I will also apply, as I have been doing, for a Westminster Hall debate, but if this motion goes through I will lose in both cases.
Mr. Hollobone: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
The Government probably know when they want to prorogue, or to advise Her Majesty on when prorogation should take place, but they are not telling us. The motion is not nearly as good as it could be, and they should go away and think about it again. They could then come back tomorrow with a far more sensibly drafted version that not only secured parliamentary airtime in Westminster Hall and confirmed that there will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health, but gave an indication to this Chamber about the timing of any Prorogation, if it is to be on Tuesday 30 October.
The Government have made no provision at all for the debates in Westminster Hall that should take place in the new parliamentary Session. They have spent a great deal of time ensuring that carry-over motions on
important Bills are put before the House. For example, last week we had a very important carry-over motion on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I had the privilege of serving on that Public Bill Committee, and I am very much looking forward to doing so in the next parliamentary Session. However, there is no carry-over provision with regard to debates in Westminster Hall. When we come back on Tuesday 6 November for the opening of the new Session, surely it would be sensible, in order to secure Back Benchers’ rights, to ensure that provision can be made in this Session for applications for Westminster Hall debates on the first Wednesday—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing the boat out a bit too far in relation to these matters. This motion is very narrow.
Mr. Hollobone: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, which I appreciate. I shall conclude with these remarks. I know that you attach a great deal of importance to Westminster Hall, Mr. Speaker, as do I and other hon. Members. I simply say to the Government that it is not appropriate to curtail the valuable parliamentary airtime that Back Benchers enjoy by cutting Westminster Hall debates on the last day of every Session.
9.44 pm
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con):
I will not detain the House long, but this is an important issue. The power of the Executive is extremely strong. As parliamentarians we should try to take that power from the Executive and give it back to Members of this House. It is exceptionally unfortunate when debates that are designed for Members to raise issues are
stopped. I cannot see the reason for it. There does not seem to be any possible reason why we could not have those debates. Unfortunately, I doubt that we will learn it tonight, but I do not think that the motion is a particularly good one.
COMMITTEES
That Mr Rob Wilson be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr Graham Stuart be added. ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection . ]
That Mr David Amess be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr Robert Syms be added. ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection .]
That Mr. Richard Benyon be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and David T. C. Davies be added. ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
That Justine Greening be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Mr Oliver Heald be added. ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Alderman Blaxill School
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Watts.]
9.46 pm
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): The issue of secondary education in Colchester has widened since I secured this debate, because on Friday Essex county council published proposals to shut not only Alderman Blaxill school but a second school, the Thomas Lord Audley school and language college. The county wants to build a 1,200 place academy on the site of the latter. That will result in a net reduction of 500 secondary school places in Colchester—one of the fastest growing towns in Britain—and in future years will cause a knock-on effect at all the other secondary schools as parents scramble for a place.
Parental choice is already a myth for hundreds of parents. The loss of 500 places, if Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley close, will make choice of school even more of a lottery. The closure of Alderman Blaxill school will be contrary to the Government’s sustainable communities objectives and their programme of safe routes to school, and it will be a victory for the right-wing Tory county council based 30 miles away in Chelmsford, only one of whose members represents a county division in Colchester—and he used to run his own private school. The town is otherwise represented by three Liberal Democrat and two Labour county councillors. Sadly, Colchester has to suffer the consequences of being ruled by Tories who do not live there. Surely the Minister does not want to jump into the same bed as the county Conservatives.
There is massive opposition in the Shrub End area to the closure of Alderman Blaxill school, which has been at the heart of the local community since it opened just over 50 years ago. It is a much loved community school. Petitions have already attracted more than 2,500 signatures. Special appreciation goes to the Colchester Gazette, the town’s daily newspaper, which has launched a campaign to save the school—repeating what it did 15 years ago when the county Tories last tried to shut the school but were thwarted by people power.
The Gazette campaign, which is regularly covered in the newspaper, has its own distinctive logo with the words, “Alderman Blaxill Must Stay Open—Save Our School”. Indeed, tonight’s Gazette leads on that very issue. I call on the Minister tonight to give his backing to the local community and not to the right-wing Tories at county hall, who have no interest in Colchester other than asset stripping and reducing services, as witnessed already this year by the decision to close the town’s adult community education college at Grey Friars, which is to be sold, and by the closure of the Colchester record office, with the transfer of the historic records of Britain’s oldest recorded town to Chelmsford.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |