Finance Bill (Hansard, 9 July 1985)

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that your discretion in which new clauses should be debated, is absolute, but I wonder whether you could give me some help, as I am in extreme difficulties. New clause 14 stands in my name and in the names of 133 of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Its purpose is to reduce the tax liabilities of Johnson Matthey on the ground that its shareholders have been the subject of fraud by people to whom loans have been made by the auditors and directors.
I do not intend to deal with the merits or otherwise of the clause, but when it was found yesterday that it was not on the provisional selection list I wrote a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, saying that right hon. and hon. Members were putting their names in droves to it. In fact, 134 right hon. and hon. Members have now put their names to it. This is an unusually high number and shows the extraordinary strength of feeling by the Opposition about this matter.
When I came in this morning I understood that you were having another look at the list. As new clause 14 was not on the list, I have been back to Hackney and discussed the selection with some of the people there. They have said to me, possibly wrongly, that they know that my intention, as a representative of the poorest borough in the country, is to criticise some of the richest and most powerful people in the City. They believe that the Establishment will riot let me get away with this. You know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I had a brush about whether or not there is fraud in this House. He was wrong and I was right. I have here a file which contains only a fraction of what I know about fraud at Johnson Matthey. We are discussing a Finance Bill to which a new clause has been tabled which I am told is in order and 134 right hon. and hon. Members wish to discuss it, and it is extraordinary that it is not to be called. We need your help on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could find a way round this problem. The Bill is to be discussed not only today but tomorrow, which means that there will be ample opportunity for you to have consultations and to find ways and means by which this matter can be discussed in the House. It has not been dealt with properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has information which is very important. The proper democratic processes should be carried out. We have had only a statement on Johnson Matthey. We have been refused a debate by the Government. It seems that we are being gagged everywhere we go.
It is well known that many people prominent in Tory circles have some connection with Johnson Matthey and what took place. We are concerned about the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England, Leigh-Pemberton, was put there by the Prime Minister because he was, in her words, "one of us."
903 It is imperative, therefore, that we debate this matter. We appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to find a way to enable this issue to be dealt with, if possible as we discuss the Bill.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I was the hon. Member who originally tabled the nine new clauses in an effort to extract a debate on Johnson Matthey. However, of the nine, only two were found to be in order. I tabled those new clauses because people inside and outside the House were asking why Parliament had so far failed to discuss the matter.
Time and again the Leader of the House has refused at business question time on Thursdays, when answering questions from my hon. Friends and me, to allocate time for a debate. Thus, the only means available to us to secure a debate was to table the new clauses. We hoped that, if they proved to be in order, you, using your discretion, Mr. Speaker, would allocate time for such a debate.
While not questioning the decisions that you make, Mr. Speaker — and I am sure that in making them you consult widely with those concerned with all the issues—I gather that it is within your power, even at this late stage, to reconsider your selection. Overnight, 134 of my hon. Friends put their names to the new clauses. At least another 50 would have signed had there not been a deadline of 9 pm in the Public Bill Office for the submission of names. Indeed, as many as 200 might have submitted their names by this morning.
Is that not an indication of the concern among hon. Members about the need for this whole issue to be fully discussed? In the light of that expressed concern, will you reconsider your decision, Mr. Speaker? The country wants to know what has happened. People cannot understand why Parliament refuses to debate the subject, particularly as, potentially, several hundred million pounds of public money is directly involved in saving this bank?

§ Mr. Speaker
I received a letter from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) asking if I would look into the matter again. I have spent a considerable time considering the matter. I well understand the interest of hon. Members and I appreciate that overnight a large number of hon. Members added their names to the new clauses. However, I am not able to change my selection, and I have nothing further to say on the subject.