"Thank goodness!" exclaimed one customer with typical Yorkshire bluntness. "At least they can't do any more damage to this country than they already have done."

His friend was less certain, as the two men started to put the world to right. "Eleven weeks?" he protested. "Hang on. When I was a lad, and working down a pit, two weeks was all we got – if we were bloody lucky. Who do they think they are?"

It was a conversation which encapsulated the divergence of views as the House of Commons prepares to wind down for the summer recess – and MPs search out the suntan lotion.

Is it right that our politicians should be entitled to such a long holiday – especially at a time when people are fraught with worry over their jobs, mortgages and how to pay the next bill?

Let's face facts. Most Ministers and MPs will not be away for 11 weeks. And, irrespective of one's feelings towards politicians, they, too, are human and are entitled to a break.

Most will only be away from their desk for a fortnight – even less if Gordon Brown's seaside holiday is interrupted by a crisis as it was last year after just a matter of hours when the spectre of foot and
mouth returned.

But it must be remembered that the 75 days when Parliament is not sitting is just the tip of the iceberg. There's the Christmas, Easter and Whitsun breaks – plus all the days, especially Fridays, when the Commons is closed.

And, at a time when most workers are entitled no more than five weeks' annual holiday, and now cannot afford a short break away because of the economic downturn, should MPs be allowed to be away from Westminster for so long?

I ask this question because Britain's financial prospects are so bleak, especially in the short-term, that the Government might be forced to take emergency action during the summer.

It may or may not require a change in the law, but it would be infinitely better if Parliament was, at least, in a position to reconvene at short notice – especially if Ministers were to find themselves with another bank collapse on their hands.

Take the events of September 3, 1992, when Gordon Brown, as Shadow Chancellor, was instrumental in persuading John Smith – the then Labour leader – to write to Prime Minister John Major and request an emergency recall of Parliament as interest rates soared and Britain
was on the brink of pulling out of the ERM. Major dismissed the request within an hour. Yet, three weeks later, the Commons had reconvened in crisis and he was having to debate an emergency motion expressing "support for the economic policy of HM Government". The bewildering speed of the downturn left the Tories humiliated.

It is a fine line. The recall of Parliament is tantamount to admitting the country is in crisis – or facing up to the prospect of war. The three times that Tony Blair interrupted the summer holidays
of his MPs all fell into the latter category; namely the Omagh bomb, al-Qaida's terrorist attack on America's liberty and publication of the Iraq war dossier.

Yet there are, of course, occasions when Opposition demands for Parliament's recall are dismissed because they are politically-motivated. Rising unemployment prompted the Tories to issue such a demand in 1975 under Margaret Thatcher's leadership.

However, on becoming Prime Minister, Thatcher twice rejected Labour calls for just such a debate when the number of people out of work topped the two million barrier during a period of recess.

Such decisions would not have to be made, however, if Parliament was only closed for a very short period of time over the summer.

The Government will, doubtless, point out that there is insufficient business for MPs to discuss to make this exercise worthwhile, but
I disagree.

Each week, about two dozen backbenchers stand up at Business Questions and ask Harriet Harman, the Leader of the Commons, to find time for a debate on an issue that is pertinent to their constituency.

Each week, these requests are rebuffed by Harman.

Each week, an MP requests a debate on the floor of the House of Commons about the impact of the post office closure programme on local communities. Each week, this call is brushed aside by Harman who says Westminster Hall – the ante-chamber to the Commons – is the place to air local concerns. Each week, she refuses requests for a national debate on this issue.

She is wrong. The anger on this issue is so immense that time should be found to debate the future of postal services in the Commons. To fail to do so is an abuse of democracy.

It was the same with the vote over plans to detain terror suspects for
42 days without charge. The Government made so little time available for this debate that many MPs could not make meaningful contributions – a contributory factor behind David Davis's decision to resign as Shadow Home Secretary and prompt a by-election.

The shortage of Commons time is the reason Harman has now delayed the potentially contentious vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, though some may believe that this had more to do with shoring up the Catholic vote in next week's Glasgow East by-election.

Now the Government has said that its proposal to reform the Lords will not become law until after the next election. A lack of Parliamentary time was one of the excuses trotted out this week by Jack Straw, the
Justice Secretary.

And, whenever a major issue comes to the fore, such as pensions, climate change, knife crime, nuclear power or, dare one say it, MPs' pay and allowances, you can bet your last pound that the Government will say there needs to be a national debate.

Well, let there be a national debate. Let's set aside certain weeks over the summer period where the Commons can explore the Government's proposals over a period of two or three days, and hold Ministers to account. And, if an emergency debate is required on the economy,
or an unforeseeable crisis, then there is scope to hold such a debate – because the Commons will already be operating.

There is time for the great issues facing this country to be debated – but only if MPs chose to find time during the summer recess. In
essence, MPs need to start justifying their existence.