Hon. Member for Dover (Hansard, 3 May 1988)

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any communication from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), and in particular have you received a request from him to be given an opportunity to make a personal statement withdrawing the wrongful accusations of support for acts of violence and intimidation which he levelled at several of my right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday?
A personal retraction would follow the precedent set, for example, last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and by Mr. Willie Hamilton, then the Member for Fife, Central. It would also follow an earlier precedent set by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), after the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), then the Leader of the Opposition, complained that what he had said was a personal reflection on her.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have received no request from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to make a personal statement. I have received from him a letter setting out the background to his remarks during business questions last Thursday.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
If it would help, Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to clarify certain matters, as you invited me to do last Thursday. It may be that the clarification that I gave last Thursday was not sufficient. It is a matter of slight regret to me that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the matter today in the way that he did. It seemed to inflame the matter further. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I called the hon. Gentleman, and he is giving an explanation. It is not a personal statement, and I hope that what he is saying will not be contentious.

§ Mr. Shaw
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to construct some words, but, as you see, some Opposition Members do not seem to wish to hear them. I tried to construct words that I thought would help the House, and those outside, to understand what has gone on. I should make it clear that what concerned me about the statement by the national executive committee of the Labour party was the loose wording that called on the Labour movement—and I quote—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that this is not the moment to refer in detail to what he said last Thursday. If he wishes to withdraw any personal allegation that he may have unintentionally made, I should be very grateful if he would do so. That would be in the right spirit, and would satisfy the House.

§ Mr. Shaw
I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that anything that I said was directed at the statement issued by the Labour national executive committee and not at individual Members of the House. I stress, however, that it was a Labour party national executive committee statement.

§ Mr. Dobson
Further to that point of order, M r. Speaker. It is quite clear, and is on the record in Hansard, that on 28 April the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. 737 Shaw) said that something that had happened in his constituency—which no Opposition Member thinks should have happened— occurred within 24 hours of the Labour party national executive expressing solidarity with the acts of violence and intimidation".—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; Vol. 132, C. 509.] There is no question; the record is clear beyond peradventure. That was not what the Labour party executive either resolved or issued to the press. The Opposition are not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's failure to withdraw that false accusation; nor will we be satisfied until we hear a retraction from him, or disciplinary action is taken by the Leader of the House and the Tory Chief Whip, who, as you know, Mr. Speaker, spend their time prating in public and pressurising in private about the behaviour of Opposition Members. What we want is equal treatment of Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Speaker
We have a busy day ahead of us, and I was hoping that we would be able to dispose of this matter this afternoon. I do not think that we can profitably continue discussing it through points of order. I have reflected very carefully, and looked in Hansard to see whether I should at that time have exercised my discretion to get the hon. Member to withdraw what he had said. It was said in a broad sense. He did not make individual charges against individual Members of the House. It was a political argument, and many harsh political things are said in this Chamber. It would, I think, be helpful if we could now reflect on the matter and see whether we can find some other solution.

§ Mr. Dobson
Further to my original point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends find it difficult to believe that a specific reference to the Labour party national executive—a group of named, known people which involves 12 right hon. and hon. Members—is just a vague smear, which is what your ruling suggests. This "vague smear", which is untruthful, is apparently acceptable in the House. We would argue, however, that it was not a vague smear, but a direct untruth about the activities and actions of 12 right hon. and hon. Members. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the matter, and examine the precedents that I have cited and what was said before the withdrawals by three of my hon. Friends. I think that you will find that the precedent is and should be binding on the hon. Member for Dover.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have not seen the statement put out by the national executive. What I heard on Thursday was an allegation that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) had said something rather derogatory about members of the national executive. It was a political matter—and harsh things are frequently said across the Floor of this Chamber in political argument—but it was not out of order.

§ Mr. Pat Wall (Bradford, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As reported in column 522 of Hansardfor 28 April, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred to two Members of the House of Commons. As I was on the picket line on the afternoon when the hon. Gentleman made his statement, I am not prepared to have my reputation impugned in that way. When I was on the 738 picket line that day, I asked the union's permission to speak, and I spoke in favour of the workers' side of the dispute. They have a right to strike and to receive support. What I will not tolerate is being associated with the idea that I am in favour of vandalising a person's house, or of violence or threats.
Very few hon. Members have had the sort of treatment from the media that my family and I have received. As a result, my son was assaulted by 20 hooligans. His jaw was broken, and he was put in hospital. My wife was reduced to tears in public houses, refused service in shops and spat at. We received hate mail with razor blades sewn into envelopes. No Conservative Member or anyone else can accuse me of being in favour of vandalism or of violence.
I ask for the statement to be withdrawn. It is a disgrace to me; it is a disgrace to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller); it is a disgrace to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); it is a disgrace to all the members of the national executive; and, in my opinion, it is a disgrace to the House.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) commented on a broad political issue, it may be helpful for me, as the Member representing the adjoining constituency, to point out that, whatever acts of intimidation and violence may have occurred, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was in the area all the weekend, has used his best endeavours to defuse the tensions and has completely disassociated himself—and, I understand, the Labour party as a whole—from the acts of violence. If Labour Front Benchers could simply make it clear that they confirm those attitudes—[Interruption.]—I think that the matter could be buried completely.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sure that the whole House accepts that the Labour Front Bench—indeed, any Member of the House, including the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall)—would not advocate violence of any kind. I think that we should reflect further on the matter.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to column 522 of Hansardfor 28 April? It includes the statement that at least two hon. Members are on the picket line at the moment and, as I understand it, are encouraging the very acts to which I referred earlier".—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 522.] Let us refer back to those allegations about two hon. Members. They were of acts of violence and intimidation.
The issue is very simple. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has made an allegation against two of my hon. Friends. Two weeks ago, you rightly asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) to come to the House and make a personal statement, agreed with you through the Clerk of the House. I put it to you that this matter requires precisely the same response from the hon. Member for Dover. Opposition Members look to the hon. Gentleman to agree a statement with you withdrawing the allegations, and for him to make that statement tomorrow.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall consider that, but I think that it would be very helpful if the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) were to say today that he was not reflecting on the honour of any two Members of the House.

§ Mr. David Shaw
I am happy to confirm the words which you, Mr. Speaker, have just used.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman should go a little further than that and say that he was not alleging that the two hon. Members who were on the picket line were encouraging acts of violence.

§ Mr. Shaw
I did not intend to allege those matters. As I said earlier, I was referring solely to a statement that had been issued by the Labour party national executive committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has, I think, withdrawn those allegations against the two hon. Members concerned. I do not think that we can carry the matter any further this afternoon.

§ Mr. Dobson
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, you rightly required the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to withdraw a very generalised accusation of support for terrorism among some unspecified Opposition Members. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily to rule now, but to consider the matter further. You having ruled out of order generalised complaints and accusations against unspecified hon. Members made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North, it must be out of order for an hon. Member to say that 12 hon. Members who are known by name had expressed solidarity with acts of violence and intimidation. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will consider the matter further and give a ruling tomorrow.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps the wisest thing would be for me to give careful consideration to what has been said this afternoon.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you, Mr. Speaker, and the House wish to clarify all matters outstanding from last week, particularly from 28 April, may I draw your attention to column 520 of Hansard? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) quite clearly said: The hon. Member for Dover is a liar."—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 520.] While you, Mr. Speaker, are of a mind to tie up the loose ends which may remain from last week, and in order to clarify these matters and to straighten out the question of the honour of the House, I now expect that you will call upon the hon. Member for Walsall, North fully to withdraw his words about my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Speaker
There was a great deal of noise on Thursday. It may well be in Hansard because it is referred to later. The hon. Member must know that, at this end of the Chamber, the Chair frequently does not hear comments that are made below the Gangway. Perhaps that is just as well. I certainly did not hear that comment, and I said so at the time.

Mr. Eric S. Heller (Liverpool, Walton)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to the House to forget this whole business? As an hon. Member who was 740 accused of saying all sorts of things that I never said, and would not advocate, we have now had sufficient time on this matter and we should leave it at that. When I was asked by the press whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was telling the truth, I said quite clearly "No." I believe that that is the case. I should have thought it better for us to have sufficient time tomorrow to discuss the issue of the seamen rather than the nonsense about which we have just heard.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I fully appreciate that this is a very contentious matter, but I consider it inappropriate for political issues of this kind to be discussed through the Chair.