Points of Order (Hansard, 8 June 1988)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As reported in column 729 of yesterday's Hansard, you said in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the possible misleading of the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science might be a matter of privilege. You asked us to write to you, and that we have done. I understand perfectly well—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has written to me on this as a matter of privilege and I am looking into it. I cannot allow him to raise it now.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. From time to time you are placed in some difficulty as a result of the Government evading their responsibility and not making statements to the House. [Interruption.] There is no need to get excited; we are not setting light to anything.
According to reports today and a written answer, the Government are proposing to announce a serious change regarding planning requirements for local authorities in respect of opencast applications. Bearing in mind the commercial viability that the Government are now asking local authorities to take into account when considering opencast applications, in my opinion and the opinion of many, the change would alter the nature of planning consent by local authorities in respect not only of opencast applications but perhaps of incursions into the green belt in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, and goodness knows how many others.
On occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have chided the Government for using the method of answering written questions late in the day when hon. Members cannot challenge them. Bearing that in mind, will you take steps to ensure that we have an opportunity to raise the matter with the appropriate Secretary of State so that hon. Members on both sides of the House may ask questions about this controversial change in planning consent?

§ Mr. Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are several dozen written questions tabled for answer every day.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is a big 'un.

§ Mr. Speaker
It may be a big 'un, but we had better wait to find out what the answer is.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the Opposition Supply day debate on the takeover bid for Rowntree. As you know, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members are debarred from voting on matters in which they have a direct pecuniary interest. The Government's amendment, in effect, allows, indeed encourages, a takeover bid by Nestlé. The effect of the takeover bid has been to increase share values. Therefore, any Conservative Member who has shares who voted for the amendment would be voting to enhance his pecuniary interest. May I suggest that you call on hon. Members who are in that position not to vote in the debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
I can clarify the issue. Any hon. Member who has an interest in any of the companies should declare it in the debate. On a question of public policy, it has always been in order for hon. Members to vote.