§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will take the points of order, but they must be matters for me, because we have an important debate today.
§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)I rise to ask about a point arising out of the answers from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House on the privatisation of the Rover group. Mr. Speaker, are you now prepared to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on the letters from 6 to 12 July 1988 between Lord Young and the chairman of British Aerospace over the graft, sleaze and corruption that were involved in that privatisation deal?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot accept a motion on that subject. The matter is under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee.
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked a question that involved him mentioning two early-day motions, and you ruled that he could mention only one. Is that the practice? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in earlier business questions, reeled off several early-day motions attacking the Prime Minister. Is it all right to quote several early-day motions to attack the Prime Minister, but not to use several in relation to Bradford?
§ Mr. SpeakerObviously, the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I made a statement, following that incident, about the number of early-day motions to be mentioned at business questions. If he will come to me later, I will give him the reference and he will be able to look at it himself.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, in the debate, I drew attention to the allegations that the Government were in breach of European Community directives in respect of contracts given by the Crown Suppliers to its contractors. These contracts covered tens of millions of pounds-worth of business. In the debate, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking to the House that those allegations would be dealt with "comprehensively" in the reply from the Under-Secretary. Despite being pressed, the Under-Secretary refused to comment on those matters in his wind-up speech. Will you deprecate the actions of the Secretary of State, who gave solemn undertakings that replies would be given but, when the chance came and the Under-Secretary gave his reply, no reference was made to those matters because the Government wish to hide them under the carpet?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a very old complaint. The answers that hon. Members receive are frequently not to their liking, but that is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThere was no reply at all.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not a matter for me what answers are given.
§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Each day, four tonnes of waste paper are taken away from the House. Will you tell those who compile the vote each afternoon that it is only necessary to list, say, the first 20 questions on each subject? There is no need to tell me that my question to the Prime Minister is No. 156.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Select Committee on Procedure is looking at that very matter.