§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the true and parlous state of British Shipbuilders' finances as revealed in public statements today.Yesterday we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which went on for a long time and which purported to review the state of British Shipbuilders and its plans for the future, including the sale of the warship-building yards, which were a notable and controversial feature of that statement. Now, 24 hours later, after two public sittings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, it is apparent that major facts that were not available to us yesterday have now come into the public gaze that profoundly affect the urgency of the financial problems of British Shipbuilders.I refer to two matters. First, it has become plain that responsibility for the completion of the British Petroleum oil rig at the Scott Lithgow yard remains with British Shipbuilders, in spite of the sale at very good terms and benefit to Trafalgar House. Unless that contract is completed—British Shipbuilders now has no possibility of exercising direct responsibility itself—a penalty of no less than £78 million, or the demand that it should purchase the oil rig from British Petroleum, will have to be met. That will have a profound effect on the accounts of British Shipbuilders.
The second fact that has been revealed by the chairman of British Shipbuilders in his evidence today is that the proceeds of the compulsory sale of the profitable warship-building yards that are to be taken from British Shipbuilders will not accrue to British Shipbuilders but will go straight to the Treasury. That is quite unlike the arrangements that have been announced for the sale of Jaguar in relation to British Leyland. Apart from the appalling lack of candour to which we were treated yesterday in our exchanges with the Secretary of State, there are now, inevitably—this reflects the gravity and urgency of the situation — serious doubts about the financial viability of British Shipbuilders.
1252 As the House knows, the auditors qualified their approval of the accounts in the report published yesterday with the Secretary of State's statement. The small print of the accountants' qualifications has now been given a far more visible and dramatic meaning in the proceedings before the Select Committee, which I have just revealed. I am urging that we should now adjourn and debate the motion that the financial state of British Shipbuilders has been left in a truly parlous and difficult position and that it is vital for the commercial reputation and for the ongoing viability of British Shipbuilders that all doubts be cleared up and removed at the earliest possible moment so that British Shipbuilders can carry out its proper functions.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the true and parlous state of British Shipbuilders' finances as revealed in public statements today.I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member has said but regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider referring the question of Standing Order No. 10 to the Select Committee on Procedure? The Standing Order makes it plain that even if you, Mr. Speaker, grant a request, the leave of the House must be obtained and there must be 40 hon. Members present to give that leave.
As there have not been anything like 40 hon. Members in the House, and certainly nothing like 40 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches during the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's submission, will you give some consideration to the matter, Mr. Speaker, as the time of the House is frequently wasted by such applications.
§ Mr. SpeakerStanding Order No. 10 applications are a rather precious Back Bench and Opposition initiative. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the procedure should be changed, it is up to him to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. I should then be bound by whatever decision is taken.