Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)

I will check the record tomorrow, as doubtless will the hon. Gentleman. I certainly believe, and the evidence from polling confirms it, that the vast majority of the British people believe that this treaty does have constitutional significance and that there should therefore be a referendum. Let me pick up one or two points that arose earlier when the Minister for Europe, who I now see back in his place, was speaking. Paragraph (4) of the business motion deals with Standing Order No. 24, on which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made an interesting ruling. I come back to it not because I believe it is extraordinarily likely on the balance of probabilities that our debates on the treaty will throw something up that will require a debate under that Standing Order, but because an important point of principle is at stake. I suspect that if the motion is passed tonight, it will not be long before other programming motions are presented containing the same clause, and I think that that would be a retrograde step. I stand to be corrected by the Minister, but my reading of Standing Order No. 24 and the motion suggests that the motion makes a significant change in removing not just Mr. Speaker’s right to make decisions on whether we should have debates, but the right of a Member to rise at the start of business and apply for a debate under the standing order. The motion states that on an allotted day when there is a motion in a Minister’s name to discuss the treaty,"““proceedings shall be taken in accordance with the Table.””" The table makes no provision for a Member to request a debate. Standing Order No. 24 provides for an Adjournment debate on"““a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.””" If a Member applied for such a debate, and if Mr. Speaker were minded to grant it, it would by definition be on an important matter that should be considered urgently by the House. Given that on most of the allotted days the hours of business are protected, it would surely be appropriate for the debate on the standing order to take place at the start of business on the following day—or, if Mr. Speaker decided that it was sufficiently urgent, later the same day—and for proceedings on the treaty to commence afterwards. I feel that given the frequency with which such urgent matters arise, if a matter were important and urgent enough for Mr. Speaker to see fit to grant a debate, it should take precedence over discussion of the treaty. When this issue was raised earlier, the Minister responded to the various points of order and interventions by saying that he was minded to be flexible on such occasions, but however reasonable the Minister is—and he is a reasonable man—it is in the nature of business motions that we do not really want to rely on the reasonableness or otherwise of Ministers. Indeed, it might not be this Minister who happened to be at the Dispatch Box on a future occasion; it might be one of his hon. Friends, who might not be so reasonable. I think that Members would be much happier if paragraph (4) were not there, and it would be helpful if before we embarked on tomorrow’s business, another business motion were tabled removing it.