INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (Hansard, 12 May 1969)

§ Mr. Dickens
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, That the conditions being laid down by the International Monetary Fund for the granting of a stand-by credit to rephase the repayment dates of earlier borrowing by the United Kingdom are unacceptable in that they will seriously interfere with the right and duty of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government to determine the economic policies of the United Kingdom in the years ahead. In the few minutes at my disposal, I wish to refer to a precedent for my application this afternoon under Standing Order No. 9. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, following devaluation in November, 1967, on 30th November that year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to a Question asked of him by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), agreed to publish the Letter of Intent which had been sent out seven days before by his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, to Mr. Schweitzer, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund.
To his credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) at once sought the leave of the House to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. He did so on that occasion unsuccessfully because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the House could not consider the matter before publication of the Letter of Intent. Publication took place on the following day, Friday, 1st December.
On Monday, 4th December, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) successfully sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 and the matter was debated on Tuesday, 5th December. But by that time all the important decisions had been taken. The rôle of this House and of Parliament had been negated. This House had no say whatsoever in the formulation of the 978 important and far-reaching policies set out in that letter.
Judging by the reports submitted by the most responsible financial journalists in this country, it appears that a similar Letter of Intent is currently in course of preparation. I content myself by quoting from one source, in this morning's Financial Times. Mr. Samuel Britten, economics editor, writing from Washington yesterday, said: With negotiations on an I.M.F. standby credit of 1,000 million dollars nearing completion, it is already clear that Britain will have to give undertakings about the money supply of unprecedented stringency in return. This will be clear from the Letter of Intent which, as Mr. Harold Lever told the Commons last week, will again be published. And the Fund will clearly insist that its conditions are met as drawings on a standby are made. I ask: where stands Parliament in these proceedings? There can be no doubt that the implications in this Letter of Intent will have the most far-reaching repercussions for this Government, for future Governments, and for the British people.
I suggest that Parliament should take note of and learn lessons from what happened on the earlier occasion in November, 1967, and that we should have the opportunity for an immediate debate, tomorrow, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an account to the House and to the country of the negotiations currently in hand.
It would be improper for me to make any reference to Private Notice Questions, but it is a fact that some hon. Members have sought to raise this matter over the past few days in that way.
Finally, I say that the standing of this House and its membership is not all that it should be in the country. I can think of no greater step that we could take this afternoon to restore the supremacy of Parliament in this country than for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in a positive way in accordance with the request that I now make.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to seek the leave of the House to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
979 The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, That the conditions being laid down by the International Monetary Fund for the granting of a stand-by credit to rephase the repayment dates of earlier borrowing by the United Kingdom are unacceptable in that they will seriously interfere with the right and duty of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government to determine the economic policies of the United Kingdom in the years ahead. As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Member, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
On a point of order. I fully understand that it is not proper for me or for anyone else to question the Ruling that you have given, Mr. Speaker, and I do not seek to do so. But I submit that in the operation of a new rule, which this is—it has been in operation for about a couple of years now—it is possible for us to ask whether, despite the Ruling or the suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure, you could give us some future guidance about the operation of the rule. It seems to me—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member will remember that he began by saying that he cannot question the Ruling.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
I am not questioning the Ruling, Sir.
It seems to me that it is a perfectly legitimate point of order, if we are to operate this Standing Order correctly in future, without questioning your Ruling, to ask whether it is possible for you, Mr. Speaker, despite the statement or the suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure that you should not give reasons for your Ruling, to give some general guidance to the House, not only referring to this matter but to other matters, about the operation of the rule.
980 In this instance, your Ruling is especially striking in that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) said, on a previous occasion, referring to the operation—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is now beginning to question or criticise the Ruling. He cannot do that.

§ Mr. Foot
When I said at the beginning that I did not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I meant exactly what I said. I do not wish to question it at all.
I am seeking to discover whether you can assist by giving us some guidance about the operation of this rule in future, since it appears to us—this is not questioning the Ruling either now or on the previous occasion—that on the previous occasion you granted a debate in circumstances comparable with those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, except that on that occasion the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund had been written, whereas on this occasion—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Member that his hon. Friend has submitted to the Chair exactly the point that he is now putting to the Chair. The Chair has already ruled on it.
My Ruling on the broader point which the hon. Member has raised—for the second time—on Standing Order No. 9 is that I am instructed by the House not to give reasons for my Ruling. The House, in its wisdom, thought that if Mr. Speaker began to give reasons for his Rulings those reasons would become precedents which would tie up the procedure under Standing Order No. 9 as was the case before the reform started.
On the issue itself, I have ruled, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that.