British Shipbuilders (Hansard, 29 February 1984)

§ 16. Mr. Fallon
asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on British Shipbuilders policy towards shiprepair.

§ Mr. Lamont
British Shipbuilders is, with the Government's approval, in the process of moving out of shiprepairing. In disposing of its shiprepair activities, BS is mindful of the need to preserve as many jobs as possible. Successful management buy-outs have been achieved at Tyne Shiprepair and Grangemouth Dockyard Ltd. Taken together with Readheads, about 600 jobs in all have been preserved.

§ Mr. Fallon
Do not the two management buy-outs and the Readheads co-operative point the way to the future of shiprepair in this country, and to the sort of working practices that must be applied throughout British Shipbuilders?

§ Mr. Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a nationalised industry gets out of an area of operation it makes sense to give the labour force a chance to buy assets and to have a management buy-out. I regret that when the workers wanted to buy the yard at Readheads they were opposed by the trade unions and Opposition Members.

§ Mr. Shore
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to raise this point of order with you, as you will recall, shortly after the answer to question No. 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the London Dockland Transportation Consortium, but the Secretary of State declared frankly and openly that that matter was not for him, as it was not within his remit and interest as the Secretary of State. Something is wrong, as my hon. Friend should have been advised in good time if that were the case. My hon. Friend sought an answer to a legitimate question, which should have been transferred. I ask you, for the future benefit of my hon. Friend, and Members on both sides of the House, what advice should have been tendered, or could be offered, to hon. Members who table a question to the wrong Minister.
While I entirely accept the general desirability of not raising points of order until the end of Question Time, may I ask you to apply that practice in a totally non-discriminatory way in future'?

§ Mr. Speaker
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about not raising points of order until the end of Question Time, that is exactly the practice I have always followed and I shall continue it.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was misled by circumstances. I understood that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was particularly anxious to put his question to me, although he was aware that I had no departmental responsibility for the contractual matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Member for Tooting asked when I had last met the management of the group and, therefore, I had to tell him that I had not done that and had no plans to do so.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm, in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the Shadow Leader of the Opposition — the House—[Interruption.] You never know. Anything can happen. In view of my right hon. Friend's remarks regarding points of order, and the fact that he wanted to see impartiality, will you confirm that, when the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was asleep and did not ask question No. 7, a point of order was raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who tabled question No. 10, and that he somehow managed to get his point of order across?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. I did not see the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), and I did not hear the question asked or see he hon. Gentleman rise in his place. Sometimes the view from the Speaker's Chair is restricted, but the hon. Gentleman was obviously in his seat.