---

Sittings of the House

I apologise. Because of her ability, I just assumed that she was Leader. As Deputy Leader of the House, she might want to take some advice before responding. I hope that at some stage we will hear the Government's view on the motion. To say that they have been silent is not quite correct, but "I beg to move" is hardly a good enough argument for a motion that has been on the Order Paper since 23 November and has been objected to by Members of the House on every single evening since. I have not gone as far as the Committee, but have accepted the current situation, because for some reason the Committee's report has not been debated by the House. Let me move on to my amendment. It is straightforward and restores the 13 days. It says that""Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 8, 15, 22 and 29 January; 5 and 26 February"—" that suggests that I have not called for debate on every single Friday, as the hon. Lady suggested. In fact, I was very careful not to intervene in the spring recess. I also selected""5, 12, 19 and 26 March"" and I have not suggested another private Members' Bills day until 23 April. Although I do not know the dates for the Easter recess, I know when Easter is so I have allowed for those Fridays, too. I think the hon. Lady was being slightly harsh on me in suggesting that I had picked on every Friday. I have not heard the argument but perhaps it will be made at some stage that there is not enough time for Bills to be printed and prepared for a debate on 8 January—this Friday. However, we already know that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome could get his Bill then and he could probably have a whole sitting on it, so it is possible. The reason that the Bills have not been printed is that the Government failed under Standing Order No. 14 to provide the dates that they said they would provide and which they are required to do by Standing Orders. I take what might be an old-fashioned view that Standing Orders exist to protect Parliament—I am sure that is correct—and particularly to protect Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition Members of Parliament against the power of the Executive. Year after year we have seen the Government—the Executive—take more and more power, no matter which party has been in control. This year is a turning point. Parliament has been brought into disrepute by what happened last year. People are demanding that Parliament asserts itself and becomes more independent of the Executive. It is amazing that in a year when people are saying that, the Government propose to cut the time for Back-Bench debate. The Government would lose nothing by providing those extra Fridays. All it would mean is that a Minister would have to turn up on a Friday five more times than is suggested by the Government. Although this is a small piece of the overall reform of Parliament, it is exceptionally important that the Government realise that cutting off difficult debate is not in their interest. They have made that mistake time and again since I have been in Parliament. By reducing the amount of time allowed through programme motions, debate has not carried on and parts of Bills have not even been scrutinised. That is a failure of the Government. The more an item is debated, the more the Government can put their point of view.