§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to a communication that I received in an envelope in my slot In the Members' Lobby yesterday. I opened the envelope and found a communication that had been sent to me by a Kent Conservative Member announcing the closure of the profitable Matthew Brown brewery in Workington. I have not been able to locate that Conservative Member today, and therefore I am unable to name him in the Chamber, but he is a paid hack for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No hon. Member is a paid hack. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment. [Interruption] Order. Withdraw it, please.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI have been advised that I should say "salaried hack", but I know that that term would equally not be permissible. Therefore, I withdraw it and refer to him as a paid consultant.
My point of order is simple. Is it proper for a person who is paid by private industry to represent its interests in the House of Commons to use internal House facilities to send messages of that nature to other hon. Members? Indeed, is it right in principle that a Conservative Member of Parliament should announce to Parliament the closure of a profitable business in my constituency? May we have an inquiry into the incident?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Provided that that hon. Member has declared his interest in the Register of Members' Interests, it would be in order for him to put a letter on the board.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have said that, so far as I can see, it is in order. I cannot see that anything else arises.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursPerhaps you will consider the matter afresh, Mr. Speaker. It might well be in order for the hon. Gentleman to have an interest and to declare it in the register, but I put it to you that it is not correct for him to use our internal systems to pursue that interest
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member should have declared that in the correspondence as well as on the register. If there is any dispute about it, the right thing for the hon. Member to do is to take the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)Given the terms of the motion relating to the business of the House, will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that if the motion relating to the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) continues past 11.30 pm there will be no opportunity to debate the statutory instrument relating to community charges in Scotland? We want to discuss the statutory instruments and we should not give any further publicity than is necessary to the third motion on the Order Paper but should dispatch it quickly.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is correct because the subsequent business is a prayer, which must end at 11.30 pm.
§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Are we to understand that hon. Members who are salaried by companies—of which there are many on the Conservative Benches—can now use the House's facilities to lobby and badger other people? It is appalling that Parliament's facilities should be used to promote the private interests of Conservative Members. If anyone is bringing the House into disrepute, it is Conservative Members who represent private companies—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members regularly use the letter board. I have made the position clear.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that a few days ago Scottish and Newcastle Breweries gave notice of its intention to move from Workington to elsewhere to keep the company in being and to be competitive. Its name was besmirched by the hon. Member for Workington. He used phrases such as "the rape of Workington", "criminal bandits" and "industrial pirates". We must be fair and place on record the fact that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries is a Rolls-Royce company. It wants to remain in being, and to do so it must be competitive in a very competitive world. It is not right that hon. Members should use such language in the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is not a matter for me, but I often say that we must be careful about besmirching individuals—and we should not besmirch good beer either.
§ Later—
838§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter, but I am confused about what you said to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Perhaps you will confirm, in simple language, that motions Nos. 3 and 4 must be completed by 11.30 pm. Is that the implication of your ruling?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot get on to motion No. 4—Community Charges (Scotland)—until we have disposed of motion No. 3. We have just passed the business of the House motion, which limits debate on motion No. 3 to one and a half hours. To make it perfectly clear, if motion No. 3 continues until 11.30 pm, there will be no time for the prayer.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a way of avoiding this problem. Labour Members want to debate the prayer and vote in accordance with the views of our party. Surely it would be easy for the usual channels to undo the damage that has been done by removing from the Order Paper the motion relating to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). Why should we debate that motion when you, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear that Tory Members can line their pockets every day of the week by picking up directorships—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations about me.
§ Mr. SkinnerI have done.
§ Mr. SpeakerThen he must withdraw them. He must withdraw the allegation that I alleged that Tory Members were lining their pockets. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was not alleging that? Then we had best get on with the business.