Business of the House (Hansard, 28 January 1985)

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
Following discussions through the usual channels, I have agreed to table a motion to exempt the business on Wednesday on the inspector's report on the airport inquiries 1981–83 for a period of two hours. The motion relating to the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules will now be taken on a subsequent occasion.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member may do so later if he catches my eye.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)
As the Leader of the House has made one announcement to change the business during this week, will he take the occasion to tell the House when he intends to arrange for either a debate or a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we have an opportunity to hear the latest chapter in the decline and fall of the pound sterling and the further failure of the Government's economic policy?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sorry to stop the shadow Leader of the House, but this statement relates to the business on Wednesday and the inspector's report on airport inquiries. The right hon. Member will have to find another occasion—not on this statement—to raise that matter, please.

§ Mr. Shore
We are talking about the business of the House. I am inviting the Leader of the House to consider more widely whether he can make changes in the business to meet the urgency of the nation's problems.

§ Mr. Biffen
I beleve that the precedents are that I confine myself to the rather narrow point that I have raised. I take note of the important issue that concerns the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall convey his anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I say to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the rest of the House that we must deal with the statement that we have before the House.

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, when the business statement is made by the Leader of the House, he is questioned on this week's business. It is not for him to determine upon what he will be questioned, nor, with respect, Mr. Speaker, do I believe that there is a precedent for you — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — to confine the questions, provided that they relate to the business of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Member looks up the precedents, he will find that he is not correct about that. If we do not keep in order in this place, we may prejudice subsequent debates. The statement was about a motion to exempt the business on Wednesday for two hours. It was not about business generally, which is announced on Thursdays.

§ Dr. Owen
The House is not managed for the convenience of the official Opposition or the Government. It is managed for the convenience of all hon. Members. The fact that we are not to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today on the substantial increase in interest rates is open to serious question. It is open to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) to question you, Mr. Speaker, as I intend to question the Leader of the House, as to why there will not be a debate on Wednesday. The Labour party may not wish to challenge the Government's economic policies, but we do. I believe that we are in order to do so, and I should like your ruling.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I wonder whether the right hon. Member is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has already given me notice that he intends to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 10. It would be wrong for the right hon. Member to seek to widen the statement into something different. The precedent is well established.

§ Dr. Owen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that you think it is possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) would raise the matter under Standing Order No. 10 without having discussed it with me.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was in order in seeking to question the Leader of the House as to why there is not to be a debate this week on the Chancellor's statement. The Labour party may have given up using the rights and duties of the House, but I should like a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether you are saying that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was out of order and that I should be out of order in making a similar point, which is that instead of having a debate on Stansted, we should have a debate on the economy.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. One at a time. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raises an important point, but he and the House know that I am bound by Standing Orders and precedent. I draw his attention and that of the House to page 346 of "Erskine May", where it says, in relation to supplementary business statements, On other days only business questions relating to the business of the day, or to any change in the business for the week already announced, are permitted. That is why I ruled as I did.

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, 30 Devonport (Dr. Owen) should try to raise a quarrel with you when you are clearly acting with the authority of the House.
On future occasions, would you consider the possibility, when the Leader of the House announces a change of business at a time when there is great economic news, such as the change in interests rates, of asking him to arrange for a statement to be made in the House? There is a great deal of anxiety about the effect on jobs and so on, and we would therefore be glad of an opportunity to ask the Leader of the House for a statement to be made as soon as possible on the increase in the interest rate to 14 per cent.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I may be able to be of some assistance to you. As you quite rightly said, when there is a business statement on a narrow item, it is important that the leader of the Social Democratic party, if he wishes to get in on another matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Skinner
I am coming to the point. It should be open to the right hon. Gentleman to use a little ingenuity. If he had said that perhaps it would have been better for the House to devote an extra two hours to the state of the economy and the fall on the stock exchange instead of to a debate on Stansted, you would have ruled him in order, he would have complied with "Erskine May", and he would have been a little wiser. However, when someone is a one-man band, power sometimes goes to the head.

§ Dr. Owen
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I always get a little apprehensive when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that he is being helpful to me. However, in this case, that is correct.

§ Dr. Owen
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what you read out from "Erskine May", that can hardly be a ruling as to precedent. Will you consider the matter in relation to what has happened in the past?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall certainly do that.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Is this another point of order?

§ Mr. Wilkinson
No, Mr. Speaker, it is a question on the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Is the matter to be debated on Wednesday for the extra time to be considered a party matter, or, as far as the Government are concerned, is it not?

§ Mr. Biffen
Whipping is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.