Points of Order (Hansard, 10 July 1991)

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The private notice question dealt with a general subject: unlike most private notice questions, it raised issues related to many constituencies. The Government refused to make a statement, so the Opposition's only option was to put down a private notice question. You restricted it to about 16 minutes, which is a very short time for a private notice question, although I understand what a tremendously difficult job you have. Only four hon. Members were left standing, so it would not have intruded greatly on the business of the day if we had been called—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. I have to make difficult judgments. I nearly suggested to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that I would trade his ten-minute Bill for four further questions. However, the hon. Gentleman is saying that I should call those hon. Members who are here now to the detriment of those who want to speak later. The Ulster Members get very little time in the House and they constantly complain—and rightly so—that their debates are squeezed. I have an absolute obligation to protect their interests.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the fact that the private notice question followed the theft of a letter. We heard the Secretary of State make it clear that it was a storm in a teacup—indeed, one must question the motives of the BBC in leading this morning's bulletin with the story. The granting of the private notice question means that people will not be discouraged from stealing Government letters.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for me to make such points, but theft, as the Secretary of State said, is always reprehensible. But in granting the private notice question today that is not the criterion that I used. If such an issue is being widely discussed outside, surely it is right that we hear about it on the Floor of the House from the Secretary of State.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will say to those hon. Members who are rising—I know what they are going to say—that we are taking time out of the Ulster debate. We have business questions tomorrow and next week there will almost certainly be an Opposition day. There will be a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill at some stage, so there will be plenty of other opportunities to raise this issue. It is very unfair on the Ulster Members to take time out of their debate today.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order relates to Question Time, and it is not related to the other point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Well, I will take the point of order.

§ Mr. Cryer
During questions, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that there was no truth in my claim that the Department of the Environment had sent to local 966 authorities lists of institutions authorised by the Bank of England. I have checked with the Library, and I have discovered that the Department of the Environment sent out quarterly returns which included the lists—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Even if the Department has, it is not a matter of order for me.

§ Mr. Cryer
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot be held responsible for answers given to questions. I have no knowledge of that matter. Goodness me, I should be on my feet all the time if I were called on to adjudicate on whether what was said here was right or wrong.

§ Mr. Cryer
But, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Well, I would.

§ Mr. Cryer
It is naturally a matter of order that Ministers should tell the truth.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must find another way of raising the matter.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Has it been communicated to you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government intend to make a full statement about the position of the 24 local authorities, including my own authority of Allerdale, which have lent the Bank of Credit and Commerce International at least £30 million, and about the position of the further 20 local authorities that are about to surface to reveal that they too have lent substantial sums? The list to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred has on it two banks, Chancery plc and Edington plc, which have been the subject of administration orders within the past six months. They remain on the list, and the list is misleading local authorities. I wonder whether we can have a statement—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have had no request for a statement about the matter, but we had a statement on Monday. I should have thought that it would be a good subject to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on a Supply day.

§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" was issued yesterday. Page 73, says that there will be no continuing need for quality assurance within the Ministry of Defence. You know from the many questions that I have asked in the House that I have been trying to move the quality assurance unit from Woolwich in south London to my constituency. Yet today and yesterday, I have been unable to obtain from the Ministry of Defence any definitive statement on the future of the unit. May we have a statement on the matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am concerned with quality control in the Chamber. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. I do not want to challenge the Chair. However, it is significant when the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) cynically exploit the position of BCCI. That was compounded by the Parliamentary 967 Under-Secretary of State for the Environment giving a falsehood to the House. I know that it was a falsehood, because I have the documents here—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask hon. Members not to pursue the matter. They should reflect that, but for the Chair, they would not have had even the private notice question. The hon. Gentleman should sit down, please. Let us get on.

§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
No further points of order.

§ Mr. Sumberg
Well, I was mentioned.

§ Mr. Speaker
My God, yes, you were.

§ Mr. Sumberg
It would be in order and keep tip the quality of the Chamber, which I know that you are anxious to do, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) were not allowed to refer to cynicism on my part in mentioning the point in Question Time. I made the point wholly on behalf of my constituents who have lost £6.5 million because of the Labour council in Bury.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sure that we shall return lo the subject.