CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Adjournment debate

In the House of Commons, adjournment debates are held on the motion 'that the House (or sitting) do now adjourn'.

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 18, 2026
Entity authorityQ4683179
Source-derived summary

In the Westminster system, an adjournment debate is a debate on the motion, "That this House do now adjourn." In practice, this is a way of enabling the House to have a debate on a subject without considering a substantive motion.

Types of debate

There are generally two types of adjournment debate: those proposed by the government, which are used from time to time to permit general debates on topical subjects (e.g. flooding and coastal defenses, regional affairs or International Women's Day); and the half-hour adjournment at the end of each day's sitting. The half-hour adjournment is an opportunity for a backbench Member of parliament to raise a subject of their choosing, of which advance notice has been given, with the appropriate government minister. Normally, only the member raising the debate and the minister who is replying speak in the half-hour adjournment. It is not uncommon for the chamber otherwise to be empty.

The convention is that any subject may be raised on a motion for the adjournment, since any matter of national or local importance may offer a good reason for the House to continue sitting (i.e. the House should not adjourn until it has considered the topic in hand).

It is not usual for the House to vote on the adjournment motion; it is either agreed to without a vote, or it lapses once the allotted time has expired. On rare occasions, however, where the debate concerns a matter on which there are strong differences of opinion (such as the prospect of going to war), backbench members may engineer a vote.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Adjournment debate” as in the House of Commons, adjournment debates are held on the motion 'that the House (or sitting) do now adjourn'. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current 263-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Adjournment, debate and House can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as in the House of Commons, adjournment debates are held on the motion 'that the House (or sitting) do now adjourn'. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 18, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4683179. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Adjournment debate”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Adjournment debate primary sources, Adjournment debate archive and Adjournment research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Adjournment debate”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Adjournment debate” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.