Whitsun Adjournment

The debates that we have before recesses are very bizarre. They are a potpourri, a smorgasbord, an array of tapas, a pick'n' mix of an event to which little bits and pieces of debate are brought along. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) admitted as much when, in a rather random way and after telling us about the pubs that she regularly frequents until a late hour, she said that she was going to turn to the middle east. As I understand it, many years ago these debates were answered by the Prime Minister. An hon. Member would speak, the Prime Minister would reply, and that process would go on until the House was exhausted. On one occasion, an ageing Winston Churchill took 17 hours to respond to a pre-recess debate that ended in the small hours of the morning. He went to the Tea Room for a mutton chop, some chips and a cigar, and received a standing ovation as he walked in. I do not suppose that there will be many chops left by the time I finish my speech, and I am sure that I will not get a standing ovation. The Whitsun recess debate is the oddest of all, I think. The vast majority of people who enjoy the holiday do not necessarily think of its religious significance. I used to be a curate and so it fell to me to preach the sermon on Trinity Sunday, which is the one that follows Whit Sunday. The concept of the trinity is a most complicated piece of theology, and very difficult to communicate to people. It was left to the curate to explain the inexplicable—not unlike what happens with these debates. I had some difficulty, since some of my own theology was a little random too; for many years I laboured under the misapprehension that the Lord's prayer began, "Our Father, a chart in heaven, Harold be thy name." Whitsun, of course, is about Pentecost: it is when the Holy Spirit, as the shadow Leader of the House mentioned today, descends on the apostles and they speak in tongues—hence the bishop's hat is in the shape of fire on top of their heads. Of course, at the time everyone thought they were drunk; and the apostles replied that they could not be drunk because it was only 11 o'clock in the morning. That reminds me that we have had rather a lot of references to alcohol today—arguments in favour of a change in the Government's position on beer duty and a difference of views about how we should support pubs and whether we should be cracking down on under-age drinking. I am conscious that George Bernard Shaw said of alcohol and Parliament that alcohol allowed Parliament to do at 11 o'clock at night what it would never, ever think of doing at 11 o'clock in the morning. The first of our speakers was the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who spoke largely on health issues relating to his constituency, particularly the restructuring of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust. I always think it slightly odd when Members refer to operating deficits in hospitals, but the hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for financial restructuring and for targets and gave us what he called his worm's-eye perspective of what is going on locally. He referred specifically to the problems of staffing in his local hospitals, and of physical access. He pointed out that it is important for people to have public transport access to local hospitals. He mentioned the issue of having to change buses. I note that he, in his political career, has changed bus once or twice. He originally stood in 1966, when I was four years old, as the Labour candidate in Folkestone and Hythe. Then he was an Under-Secretary of State for Transport from 1976 to 1979, and an Under-Secretary of State for Health in a Government of a rather different complexion from 1995 to 1997. I always think that versatility is a very fine thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is an Atlas in this House in his attempts to hold the constitution on his shoulders, and to ensure that the House stands for the highest possible standards and takes its role as a democratic body extremely seriously. I have read a great deal of what he has written and have been involved in many campaigns for reform with him; I pay tribute to him. He said that MPs have deluded themselves that they have power, because really it is only the Government who have power in the House, and he said that we ought to be doing more about that. I agree with many things that my hon. Friend said, but in one respect I disagree. He said that the secret ballot was a very important tool. It is true that Gladstone's Reform Act 1872, which introduced the secret ballot—which, incidentally, was vigorously opposed by the Conservative party at the time—brought about a very significant change in our democracy and took away a great deal of corruption. Nevertheless, this House has rightly tended to eschew secret ballots, because it is important that our voters know how we do our business and how we voted. I note that recently, when the Spanish Parliament had to decide whether Spain should join the war in Iraq, it had a secret ballot. If this House had gone down that route, I think that our voters would have been very angry with us.