HC Deb 27 October 1989 vol 158 cc1268-70
Mr. Speaker

I shall now take points of order.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)

In view of the uncertainty and confusion in the international money markets, Mr. Speaker, have you had any indication from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer about a statement on the economic situation?

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

They are paying his wages.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is intolerable to have background conversations going on when I am listening to a point of order.

Dr. Owen

I should have thought that it was in the interests of all hon. Members that we should hear about any new Government economic initiative, such as a change in the base rate or a change in policy towards sterling, not through the press but here in the House. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask you whether you have had any indication of the Government's intention to make a statement in the House.

Mr. Speaker

I shall deal with one matter at a time. I have had no such information. Normally I should receive notification before 10 o'clock.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important issue. While you have not had notification of that, the Opposition did not have notification that two Bills were to be guillotined this week. That causes us anxiety. First, the Government should come to the House as an urgent priority to sort out the enormous chaos caused by the squabbling between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street. Secondly, at least on his occasion, the Government should give proper notification to the Opposition and on the annunciators so that they cannot slip in a few platitudes in the middle of the debate this morning, but must provide an adequate explanation to the House. I raise this matter because of their conduct—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This matter was raised yesterday. I heard the Leader of the House apologise for the fact that no notice was given. We cannot pursue that matter now. I am sure that in future notice will be given.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you had no information that the Government sought a statement from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will you confirm that, if the new Chancellor is willing and considers it necessary, as many of us do, to make a statement about exchange rate policy, it would still be possible for you to arrange a statement at 11 o'clock if you received notice between now and then, after the Chancellor has seen the response of the British exchange markets to overnight falls in New York?

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Is this the same subject?

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)

Yes. In a similar crisis 25 years ago, John Profumo lied to the House. He was asked to come to the House to explain his actions. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a serious allegation that the Prime Minister had misled the House, because at 3.15 pm yesterday she said that the Chancellor had her full support——

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Ashton

I have not finished my point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I know. The hon. Member made broadly the same point yesterday. We cannot continue with it today. The Front Bench gave the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the answer.

Mr. Ashton

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Front Bench. It answered the point, but I am putting it to you. Despite the Prime Minister misleading the House at 3.15 yesterday afternoon——

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman makes that kind of allegation, he should write to me, because it is a matter of privilege. I will not have that allegation made in the Chamber today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 19 October the Home Secretary said in a statement on the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings: the four persons involved will be eligible to apply to me for compensation under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amount of the compensation will be determined by an independent assessor."—[Official Report, 19 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 273.] Yesterday, at Question Time, the Home Secretary said: But I hope that Opposition Members, in their pursuit of this matter, will take into account the fact that the people who suffered most from it were not those who were wrongfully imprisoned, but those who were murdered at Guildford."—[Official Report, 26 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 1035.] My point of order is that the Home Secretary made it clear in his statement that the four had been wrongfully imprisoned, that the convictions were quashed and that, as there had been a miscarriage of justice, the four could apply to him for compensation. Yesterday, however, he seemed to go some way from accepting the decision of the Court of Appeal, prejudicing their right to compensation——

Mr. Speaker

Order. No—this is a matter of argument between the hon. Member—and perhaps other hon. Members—and the Home Secretary. It is not a matter of order for the Chair. I said yesterday—the whole House must accept and recognise this—that I cannot be held responsible for answers given, provided that they are in order. The Home Secretary's answer was in order.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order for you is that the House is being denied access to information. Clearly, the Government and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had access yesterday and previously to the Treasury's autumn forecasts. Setting aside Walters and all the rest of it, those forecasts were the basis of the ex-Chancellor's decision yesterday. Will the House be allowed to see that information, so that we can know the true extent of the economic catastrophe and of what happened yesterday?

Mr. Speaker

That is a spurious point of order, even for a Friday morning.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I wonder whether you could assist me, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have one particularly strong, peculiar and far-reaching power, which is not often exercised, but which you share with my wife. You have the ability to section a Member whom you feel is probably bordering on insanity. I think that you should move directly to No. 10 Downing street, as clearly there is a candidate there for your exercise of that power.

Mr. Speaker

I was chosen by the House to be the Speaker. Let us move on.