Points of Order (Hansard, 15 July 1992)

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. In addition to your duties in the House, you are a constituency Member. In that spirit, will you deprecate a decision of Customs and Excise, which is due to be announced on Friday, to close an office in my constituency with the loss of more than 100 jobs and to transfer it to Leeds? That announcement will he made without——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. I do not think that I can anticipate anything that might happen in the future.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the European Commission's outrageous suggestion that the United Kingdom's budget rebate should be reduced by 25 per cent. Not content with taking the powers of the House, it is taking our constituents' money and our privilege over supply. We are about to begin the recess, but this matter has grave implications.
May I, through your offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask the Government to make an urgent statement on the issue? My understanding has always been that we must have unanimity for any change in the budget. If so, why is the Commission making this outrageous suggestion now? It must know that——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman said that it is a suggestion. The Leader of the House is on the Front Bench and will have heard his submission.

§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
May I raise a matter of which I gave Madam Speaker and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's office notice? I received yesterday representations from staff of the National Economic Development Office about the implementation of the Chancellor's statement on 16 June. Although Labour Members disagreed with the intention behind the statement, there was consensus about the Chancellor's praise for the staff and director-general of the office. In his statement, the Chancellor gave commitments regarding employment opportunities in the Board of Trade.
The solemn undertaking that was given to the House has been acted on in part, but in a memo dated 7 July some of the staff were given only six days to apply and two days for interviews. Some have not been invited at all. I should be grateful, recognising that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are not responsible for Government statements, if you would use your good offices to bring this matter to the Chancellor's attention and ask him to ensure that it is clarified and that the spirit of the statement is met in full.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Madam Speaker was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving her prior notice. Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member's submission. It is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
We have just heard a statement from a senior Minister that he described as a statement of the Government's intent to privatise a nationalised industry. On 7 February 1985 we had a statement about the Government's intent to privatise the nationalised water industry in England and Wales. On both occasions, the Government have recognised their 1149 responsibility to keep the House informed before making any other public statement about their intentions. Yet, all this week, without making a statement to Members, Scottish Office Ministers have been trumpeting in the press their intention to privatise Scottish water services. As this is supposed to be a unitary Parliament, how can the House force Scottish Office Ministers to show it the same respect as Ministers in English and Welsh Departments have shown?

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it on the same point?

§ Mr. Canavan
Yes. I wish to support the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) legitimately made.
It is part of our parliamentary tradition that, if a Government seek to change the ownership of a major industry or service, they seek a mandate from the people by including it in their manifesto. In neither the English nor Scottish manifesto was there mention of the privatisation of the Scottish water service, which is owned and administered by local authorities. I have raised the matter in written parliamentary questions, but I have received very little information compared with what is being almost deliberately leaked to the press. Initially, Ministers denied any possibility of privatising Scottish water but then started making encouraging, positive noises to welcome such a proposal. It seems that members of the press are better informed than Parliament about the issue.
The Government have no mandate—certainly not from the people of Scotland—to privatise Scottish water. Indeed, even by British standards they have no mandate to do so. If they are intending to privatise Scottish water we should have a statement from the Minister before the House goes into recess.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Both hon. Gentlemen know that I have no responsibility for Government statements. They have made their point and I am sure that it has been heard by the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Madden
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Another point of order?

§ Mr. Madden
I am sorry to press you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in no way——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it on the same issue?

§ Mr. Madden
May I make the point that I wanted to make——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it on the same issue that was raised before—yes or no?

§ Mr. Madden
It was to urge you——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman raised before and I gave a ruling.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As tomorrow consists of timed Adjournment debates, could you give us notice of any application that might have been made for a statement tomorrow? We need to know today, if possible. Have you received any application for a statement about the wretched, appalling proposal to close the Customs and Excise revenue office in Bradford?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No, I have had no application, but I shall be here at 9.30 am tomorrow.

§ Mr. McAllion
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a new point of order?

§ Mr. McAllion
It is to support——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The point of order does not need any support. I gave a very clear answer.