Points of Order (Hansard, 7 March 1990)

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this matter, but I realise that it is complex and that you may not yet have had the opportunity to take advice and to come to a conclusion on it.
Last night the Secretary of State for Energy placed in the Library of the House a departmental minute which claims to give him the authority to accept liabilities for costs incurred by Nuclear Electric, up to a limit of £2,500 million. Under the Electricity Act 1989, any such guarantee in excess of £1,000 million cannot be given unless an order is laid before the House, debated and agreed. That was promised by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in a statement in July last year.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that the back-door method employed by the Secretary of State does not validate any guarantee that he may try to give in excess of £1,000 million? Can you also confirm that, in view of the rules of the House and the objections that we lodged last night and which appear on today's Order Paper, the Secretary of State's proper course of action is to come clean, to lay an order, and come to the House to justify this new nuclear levy on taxpayers which he proposes on top of the nuclear levy that he has already imposed on electricity users?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me some notice of this matter, because I have been able to look into it briefly, although I have not had time to go into it fully, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the tabling of an objection to the departmental minute has the effect of requiring that objection to be considered by the Department. That procedure is fully described in page 215 of "Erskine May".
As to the need for an affirmative resolution, that is a legal matter calling for an interpretation of the law, but I understand that the departmental minute contains the proviso that it is subject to parliamentary approval of the provision of the necessary funds being obtained.
I shall inquire further into what the hon. Gentleman has said.

§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had before us a report of 750 pages containing details of the most squalid and disgraceful events that have happened in industry and commerce for many years——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Member was not called on the statement, but he was not alone. What is the point of order for me?

§ Mr. Beaumont-Dark
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, it is very much a point of order for you. We often have an hour on statements, and yet on an issue of the greatest importance to the integrity of this country we are allowed only half an hour. Why can you not give us another half-hour?

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall give the hon. Gentleman the reason. I have the difficult task of balancing the obvious interests of Members in statements. Equally, I have to bear in mind the interests of hon. Members in important 883 debates that will follow. In the past, the hon. Gentleman has frequently complained that he has not been called in a debate.

§ Mr. Beaumont-Dark
That is so.

§ Mr. Speaker
He confirms that. He should not now complain because he has not been called during a statement.

§ Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is currently engaged on an inquiry into investigations on City fraud and that two of my Conservative colleagues on that Committee were called, would it not have been appropriate for at least one of the Labour members of the Committee to have been called?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman and the whole House must accept that, when a matter is raised on the Floor of the House it gives hon. Members who are not members of the Select Committee an opportunity to comment about it.

§ Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not raised a point of order before, and it is not in the least frivolous. I ask you to refer a very important matter to the Committee of Privileges because——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. As the hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order before, I shall give him some advice. If it is a matter of privilege, he must write to me in the usual way.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How does it come about that a statement on hill farming went on for one and a quarter hours, while on an issue of this kind we are closed down in about half an hour?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Heffer
I have not finished.

§ Mr. Speaker
I can help the hon. Gentleman on this matter. I have to strike a balance every day on the pressure from hon. Members to speak in subsequent debates. The hon. Gentleman is another hon. Member who frequently complains that he is not called in debate. It is very selfish to expect to be called on a statement when that would have the effect of denying his colleagues the opportunity to speak in a debate. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

§ Mr. Heffer
I have never complained about not being called. I have complained, and will continue to complain, that you, Mr. Speaker, do not listen to Members who raise points of order but intervene before they have finished. Is it not about time that you listened to hon. Members making points of order before you move in and stop them? [Interruption.] Conservative Members should understand that I am trying to protect their rights. If they do not understand that, they do not understand the first point about Parliament, which is that Back Benchers, as well as Front Benchers, have rights.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I are on the same side. We are both 884 attempting to protect the rights of Back Benchers—he in his way, and I in mine. I hope that the House will judge that, today, I have made the right decision.

§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order comes from a Member who, to best of his recollection, has never complained about not having been called in debate. While appreciating fully the difficulties that you have explained, and accepting fully your right to make these choices, may I ask whether you agree that, in this case, the difficulty is not only the fact that, because of the pressure of other business, the time allocated is short, but also the fact that this is a massive report of extreme complexity? It contains some very damning conclusions in respect of the acquirers of the House of Fraser and of Harrods and comes on the back of the assertion by the Secretary of State that he did not wish to use any of his considerable powers of intervention in the matter. In addition, there has been no indication that a debate will be arranged, either at the request of the Opposition or by the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a valid point. It is another judgment that the Chair has to take into account. This is a very complicated matter. It stands to reason that hon. Members have not had an opportunity to read the report and, therefore, are not in a position fully to formulate their questions. I think that it was right to have a preliminary look at the report today, with a view to returning to it at a later stage. I have no knowledge of a debate, but the hon. Gentleman may certainly raise the matter with the Leader of the House tomorrow.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that in situations like this you have a very difficult job. Would it not be of some assistance to you if we were to look at the possibility of having a fixed time allocated for statements—whether half an hour or one hour? We should then know exactly where we were. You, Sir, have said that we may return to this matter, but there is no guarantee that we shall ever be able to do so. In the light of the pressure from Members who wanted to intervene in the course of this very important statement, it is quite clear that it would have been much better to have an extended time for questions on it than to spend the next six hours talking about something on which many of us think we should not spend so much time.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is the hon. Gentleman's personal judgment; it may not be shared by everyone.

§ Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 24 January as reported at column 894 of the Official Report, I raised with you, Sir, on a point of order, the fact that the Isle of Wight Labour party had denounced the campaign against the community charge as having been inspired by the Militant Tendency. In view of the fact that the genie is now out of the bottle, with considerable disruption throughout the country, would it not have behoved the Leader of the Opposition to denounce the whole campaign much earlier?

§ Mr. Speaker
That does not concern order in the Chamber. I think we should move on.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Why?

§ Mr. Speaker
Very well; I shall take a point from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a very helpful former chairman of an important body.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important report of 750 pages—a £600 million cover-up. If we do not want the Chair to be involved in that cover-up, and if we are to spend six hours debating somebody picking up £50,000 from the Saudi Arabians, we should have more than half an hour to debate the report.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make accusations of that kind, he should do so in the debate later today.

§ Mr. Heffer
You said, Mr. Speaker, that I rose in relation to the statement. I never moved from my seat. I never made any move to ask a question. I think that you should withdraw your statement, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
If I made a mistake, I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman.