§ 4 pm
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order, of which I have notified the Secretary of State for Scotland and also the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.
Yesterday, in the debate on Scott Lithgow, the Secretary of State for Scotland purported to quote from a speech that I made in the House of Commons when I served in Her Majesty's Government. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, also purported to make such a quotation. Neither of them notified me in advance that they intended to refer to me — [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—unlike the Secretary of State for the Environment who, before he referred to me in the debate on the rate support grant on Monday, properly notified me that he would do so.
An extract from a statement I made and the answer I gave to a question in the House in February 1977 was quoted by the Secretary of State for Scotland in seeking to justify the Government's failure to assist Scott Lithgow. He quoted, totally out of context, part of a sentence which said:
It would be foolish to bail out yards that are not able to meet pricing and delivery criteria.I say that the right hon. Gentleman wrenched that out of context, because it was part of a statement that I made in the House on that day, announcing the introduction by the Labour Government of a £65 million intervention fund for assisting shipyards to gain orders, and in which I said:The Government are determined to emerge from this crisis with a substantial and viable shipbuilding industry with secure long-term employment prospects.I also said, in reply to the Leader of the House, who was speaking for the then Opposition, that the Government were not looking for any reduction in capacity, and thatwe refuse to accept across-the-board reductions in capacity for the British shipbuilding industry." — [Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1653–55.]So, contrary to the impression that the Secretary of State sought to give to the House yesterday, in my absence, far from advocating reductions in the shipbuilding industry, I was announcing unprecedented assistance for the shipbuilding industry.Secondly, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, said:
It was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, when a Minister in the Labour Government, said, as my right hon. Friend pointed out today, that we cannot go on having one yard threatening the existence of British Shipbuilders."— [Official Report, 24 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 819.]I made no such statement, and it was impossible for me to make such a statement because, at the time that I made that statement in the House, British Shipbuilders did not even exist.926 In addition, when I spoke on that day, quite contrary to what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said, I stated:
Our aim is not to see how many yards we can close; it is to find the maximum numbers of yards that we can keep open." —[Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1656.]
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)Weasel words.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is unfair to have the debate all over again. The right hon. Gentleman should now bring his point of order to me to a conclusion.
§ Mr. KaufmanMr. Speaker, you make the very point that I seek to make. If I had been notified either by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, I should have been able to intervene in the debate yesterday and make clear —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why were you not here?"] I was not here because I am active in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, that being one of my duties in the House at present.
You very properly say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not appropriate to have the debate all over again but if I had been notified I could have been here to make it clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrenching my words most distortedly out of context, and that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry was foisting an invention on the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerMay I say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, that I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will always observe the long tradition of giving notice of personal attacks. As to the contents of ministerial answers, or the contents of speeches from the Back Benches, I am afraid that I have no control over them.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the House thrives on sharp controversy sustained in good faith, and it is buttressed by conventions. I understand the anxieties that the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed, and I shall see that they are conveyed to my right hon. Friends.
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the practice of the House in regard to personal statements cover the predicament in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself, and would it not be a more effective and appropriate way of dealing with such a matter than a point of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House will have heard what the Leader of the House said.