HC Deb 15 March 1973 vol 852 cc1499-502
Mr. Hattersley

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: namely, the problem of interim Government assistance for BSA". I make this application, briefly, under three headings. The urgency of the matter can hardly be disputed and was reflected on the Stock Exchange yesterday. There are 6,000 homes in which the BSA worker is the breadwinner, and the relationship between the problem and the Government is very clear in that continuation of their employment may be dependent upon a Government interim financial grant. Thirdly, there is the immediacy of the necessity to provide it.

My failure to give notice, for which I deeply apologise, arises from the fact that it was only on a supplementary question to the Minister this afternoon that we discovered that, by some criteria which he did not specify, BSA as at present constituted does not qualify for a Government grant.

For these three reasons I make my application.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman told me he would make this application and I think he has put the point to the House very clearly. I have sympathy with him, but what I said in answer to the last application applies again here. The same report of the Committee on Procedure which dealt with the discretion of the Chair with regard to Standing Order No. 9 also I think prescribed a procedure whereby half Supply Days for such debates could be taken at short notice. There are ways for these matters to be pursued otherwise than by disrupting the announced business of the House. I am afraid I must reject the application.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not questioning your ruling in any sense whatever, of course, is it not the case that the reform, as many of us hoped it was, of the procedure under Standing Order No. 9 was specifically recommended by the Committee on Procedure in order that there should be more frequent opportunities for this Standing Order to be invoked? When that recommendation was made it was understood that the procedure of the House of Commons already announced would have to be disrupted in such cases.

Therefore, I do not know whether you would care to give us any indication now, but surely the ruling on these two cases, which many of us would have thought would have been precisely those that the Committee on Procedure would have had in mind, means that that committee or the House must look at the whole matter again and make fresh recommendations to you.

Mr. Speaker

I would welcome that, particularly as I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure and this discretion—and I think my colleagues at the time will support my recollection—was to some extent my own idea. I have subsequently regretted it because it puts a great burden upon the Chair.

I would certainly like further guidance. I am forbidden to give reasons. Therefore what I say must not be regarded as having particular application to these cases today, but supposing an emergency debate on one matter is allowed, and there are 20 other similar ones to be considered, how does one distinguish? I think the procedure was meant for special emergencies, but I will consider the matter and I would welcome any further help from the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Foot

Would you be good enough to place in the Library a list of all the other decisions you would wish to reconsider, because it might be helpful to us in the future?

Mr. Speaker

The House would do nothing but have debates under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Faulds

Surely consideration of disruption of the House's business is totally irrelevant in matters of this sort.

Mr. Speaker

That is a question of opinion.

Mr. John Mendelson

On a point of order. While not joining in the expression of opinion that my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) has lust given, I think it was always understood, particularly among those hon. Members who were here before this last Committee on Procedure made recommendations, that it was left entirely in the hands of Mr. Speaker but that the change in the rules widened his capacity for making his decision without at any time having to indicate to the House, when two or three applications were before him, why he chose one rather than the other. That was the protection we all sought to give to Mr. Speaker, but we did that so that there would be much more opportunity of its being used—so we all hoped at the time—so that matters which obviously could not wait—in the determination of Mr. Speaker, divining the judgment of the House and taking all other circumstances into consideration—could be debated. Surely it would be a poor result of the change of rule if that were not given a little more free run.

Mr. Speaker

I think there is great force in what the hon. Gentleman said. Another discretion which I find it very difficult to exercise concerns the allowing of Private Notice Questions. I allowed Private Notice Questions on these two matters today, and I allowed a certain amount of time for them to be discussed. However, I am grateful for the help which hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to give me.

Mr. Atkinson

Further to that point of order. The House can readily understand the increased difficulties suffered by you, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt they are going to get very much worse because the period between deciding the week's business and conducting it is now growing longer and some of us get to know what the week's business is two or three weeks before it actually takes place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat that sometimes, quite by accident, we back benchers come across bits of accurate information when decisions have been taken by members of the Government Front Bench deciding business two or three weeks before it is to come on. If your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not interrupt the business that has been determined, or that we should avoid doing so except in exceptional circumstances, then, as business is planned for periods further ahead, your difficulties will intensify.

Mr. Speaker

I will deal only with the business for the day of the application or for the following day.

I must now defend the debate on defence.

Forward to