Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement) (Hansard, 26 October 1987)

§ Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to note the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House about the unusual and perturbing situation that has arisen in the financial markets.
I rise on a point of order because not only is it inadequate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not come to the House to make a statement, but he has added insult to injury by proposing to speak to the stock exchange this evening. As a result, he will be reporting to the stock exchange on these events, instead of to this House, to which he is properly accountable. The Leader of the House is present, and I hope that it will be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House before he addresses the stock exchange — he certainly has time to do so —so that at the earliest opportunity he can account to the House for his responsibilities in this matter.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that today is an Opposition Supply day and that it was up to the Opposition parties to choose the subject for debate? Since events on the stock exchange have been unfolding for some days, we must assume that they did not take sufficient interest in what had been happening to select the matter for debate.

§ Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wholly unprecedented that an economic matter of such significance as the decline of the stock exchange and the importance attached to the economic consequences of the collapse in share values should not lead to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appear before the House? Many hon. Members see the Chancellor of the Exchequer night after night on the television screen, yet have not had an opportunity to question him in the House. Should that not be remedied without further delay?

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Rooker— [Interruption.] That was a slip of the tongue. Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Speaking in my capacity as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I think that we need your help. The House is in danger of looking like a Ruritanian assembly, indulging itself at the periphery, but not dealing with the problems at the heart of the nation's affairs. As the financial crisis sends the economies of the Western world spinning perilously close to calamity—we hope that that will not happen—it seems extraordinary that although every commentator in every country is talking about the matter, there has been no discussion in Parliament. I understand that the Government have been asked to make a statement but have said that the matter has nothing to do with them. However, the Chancellor is talking to everybody else about it. I understand also that there have been requests for private notice questions. Some of us find it mind-boggling that such private notice questions should be disallowed.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to any applications of that sort.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to help the House and either urge the Chancellor to make a statement or give an assurance that if one of us asks for a private notice question to be tabled tomorrow you will accept it so that the Chancellor will have an opportunity to explain what could be the most dangerous economic event of the 20th century.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an additional dimension, in that in a few days' time the Government will be hoping to flog off their holding in British Petroleum. That is obviously linked to what is taking place on the stock market now. I was confronted by somebody in my constituency today who asked whether to go for BP shares or get into gold futures. I could not answer that question. Therefore, I desperately need the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise us whether it is good for the dignity of the House, as we face the most severe recession since the war, and the fact that before the end of this year we will see mortgage foreclosures and a further rise in unemployment, to hear Conservative Members crying like public schoolboys as we face the scale of that recession?

§ Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)
Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think you will agree that we are at a crisis in which the casino-like society created by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is collapsing. Surely he should be here to explain that, particularly before he goes to the stock exchange, if indeed there is a stock exchange left to go to.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday during business questions I asked the Leader of the House, who is present, to arrange for a statement to be made on this matter. It looks as if either he has no control over the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, or he has completely ignored the wishes of many of those who want a statement to be made. It is high time that the House understood that this is not just a matter for the casino economy. What is happening on the stock exchange and on the stock exchanges internationally will affect the livelihood of all our constituents.
Labour Members are concerned about the unemployment that will follow and about further cuts that will be announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement, when he eventually makes one, whereas Tory Members like unemployment and are not concerned, but that does not mean that there should not be a statement. It is a scandal that the Tory Government do not have the guts to present their case at the Dispatch Box. It is time that they did so.

§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to describe Conservative Members as being unconcerned about unemployment?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. None of this has anything to do with me, but I will take two further points of order from hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could not the Chancellor's 26 attitude in failing to make a statement to the House about the stock exchange crisis be described as the Nero-Nero option?

§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that the Labour party is seeking to make a crisis out of a problem? Stock exchange prices are higher than they were at this time last year, but Labour Members were not calling for a debate then. It is clear that they wish to cause a crisis where none exists.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker.
Order.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I am on my feet. I have listened to the points of order because I recognise the concern of the House. I was not previously aware that the Chancellor was to make any statement outside the House. That is why I have allowed these exchanges today. As the whole House recognises, however, this is not a matter for me. The Leader of the House is present. I am certain that he will have noted what has been said about this matter, and no doubt it is one which may properly be discussed through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise your dilemma in this matter, but you have a responsibility to try to sustain the reputation of the House. The decline on the stock exchange is being discussed in every pub and wine bar, and the Chancellor is going to the stock exchange to talk about it, but he has not come to the House. That is unreasonable. It is unfair to the House and to the country, and it will bring both you, Mr. Speaker, and the House into disrepute unless the Chancellor reports to this place and explains what he is up to.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that we can carry this any further. I must emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said. There could have been an opportunity to discuss this matter today. but there is nothing that I can do about it at this stage.

§ Mr. John Smith
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Conservative Members have been referring to the subjects of today's debates. May I make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that if the Chancellor will come to the House at Seven o'clock to take part in a debate we shall propose that the subject of the debate be changed to cover this urgent topic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is too serious a matter for shouting across the Chamber.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not taking any more points of order on that matter.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Dalyell
Yes. My point of order concerns precedent. The precedent is this. Will you reflect, Mr Speaker, whether there has been a change of policy in the 27 rulings of Mr. Speaker? I have checked this with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). In the economic crisis of July 1966, Mr. Speaker King took certain key decisions off his own bat about requiring the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, our former right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, to come to the Dispatch Box against his will. I understand that that was Mr. Speaker's decision at the time. Will you reflect, Mr. Speaker, and possibly rule tomorrow, on whether there has been a change of policy from the precedent set by Mr. Speaker King?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall, of course, look up that precedent. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the making of statements. Let us move on to the statutory instruments—

§ Mr. Dobson
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Opposition wish to change the business for this evening we need the agreement of the Government so to do?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is so, but I am sure that that matter could, and should, properly be discussed through the usual channels.