Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Hilary Benn and Emma Reynolds

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend of course refers to those Liberal Democrats who will vote against these proposals—but not enough will vote against them as far as the country is concerned.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Last week in business questions, the Leader of the House said that on Wednesday next week there would be a Second Reading of “a Bill”, demonstrating some indecision on the part of the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the excuse that the Leader of the House has just given to Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland about avoiding a Thursday is paltry, because the Government could have scheduled the debate for Wednesday next week?

[Hilary Benn]

They could indeed have done so, but responsibility for that rests with the Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The large number of matters that Members will undoubtedly wish to raise tomorrow will only add to the pressure on time, if Ministers are even to begin to attempt to answer them all.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who expressed the concern that she has many potentially disadvantaged students in her constituency; I do too, and I should like to have the time to represent their concerns tomorrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House was disingenuous in suggesting that we had sufficient time—

[Emma Reynolds]

I apologise to the Leader of the House. He said only moments ago that we had sufficient time to debate these issues in the Opposition day debate, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Government made a statement on that day, tomorrow will be the second time they have tried to curtail the time allowed to debate this issue?

[Hilary Benn]

That is indeed the case. The Leader of the House’s idea of sufficient time is not our idea of sufficient time.