Yes and no debate

Your article on the House of Commons debate on the Year of Engineering Success of 29 January (6 February) clearly shows a profound misunderstanding of the way House of Commons adjournment debates operate. This particular debate only lasted half an hour and since it was in the name of a Conservative Member of Parliament, there […]

Your article on the House of Commons debate on the Year of Engineering Success of 29 January (6 February) clearly shows a profound misunderstanding of the way House of Commons adjournment debates operate.

This particular debate only lasted half an hour and since it was in the name of a Conservative Member of Parliament, there would have been no opportunity for Opposition MPs, on the back benches or front benches, to speak without his permission, and that would not have been given.

Therefore `debate’ is not a word that could be properly ascribed to this procedure.

As many of your readers will know I am heavily committed to Yes and to the promotion and elevation of engineering within the UK. Whether or not I was on the bench for the `debate’ in question is neither here nor there.

{{Adam Ingram, MPShadow Minister for Science & TechnologyHouse of Commons}}