Diamond Jubilee

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I join my fellow former member of Oxford university Labour club, the Father of the House, in paying tribute to Her Majesty. What has impressed me about her, among many other noble attributes, is her knowledgeability and her imperturbality.

I attended a meeting of the Privy Council, at which Her Majesty had the responsibility to prick sheriffs. She held an object that looks like a large knitting needle and in front a parchment roll, not dissimilar to another kind of roll, was unrolled before her. As the official read out the names, the Queen leaned forward and stabbed the roll. On one occasion when a name was read out, Her Majesty said, “But he’s dead,” to which the official’s response was, “Yes, Your Majesty, but if you will prick it, I will explain later.”

Her Majesty goes to enormous pains to obtain information in order to carry out her duties. When I attended the investiture at Buckingham palace, the Queen tapped me on the shoulder. She then made comments to me, which made it clear that she had taken the trouble to find out something about me. What I found even more encouraging and remarkable was that as each person being honoured came before her—there were a very large number—she had something to say to each one of them. It struck me as impressive that she went to all that trouble to make the day memorable for the people attending at Buckingham palace.

I want to pay tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, too. I have been involved in a number of events with His Royal Highness. I particularly remember meeting His Royal Highness at Farnborough air show at the time when I was shepherding through legislation to nationalise the aircraft industry and to create British Aerospace. He had some extremely forthright comments and pieces of advice to offer about how British Aerospace should be nationalised. I took due account of what he said when we carried the legislation through Parliament.

While there are Presidents in countries all over the world, this country has what some might regard as an anomaly, whereby the Head of State is an hereditary monarch. The greatest achievement of Her Majesty is that she has proved by the way in which she has presided over this country for 60 years that hereditary monarchy provides a better basis for genuine democracy than any of the presidencies we see in different parts of the world. Her impartiality and knowledgability have demonstrated to all of us that we, who have the best democracy in the world—despite occasional electoral aberrations—owe that democracy, in which all of us are free, to Her Majesty. What she has done in making this United Kingdom a permanent democracy, a democracy that is impregnable, is perhaps the greatest of her many achievements.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

European Council

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

As a Member who voted for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1973, and who as shadow Foreign Secretary refused to meet Gaddafi when he invited me to go to Libya to collect financial compensation—blood money—for the family of WPC Fletcher, may I state my disgust and revulsion at the murder, and the nature of the killing, of Gaddafi? May I ask the Prime Minister to emphasise to the national transitional council that the future for democracy in Libya lies in reconciliation, not revenge?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I can announce to the House that Chairman Jalil, leader of the national transitional council, has announced today that there will be an inquiry into the circumstances of Colonel Gaddafi’s death. Clearly, we wanted him to face justice. That is what should have happened, and it is important that that inquiry goes ahead. However, I do not stand back for one second from what I said in my statement—that because the Gaddafi era is over and he is gone, the Libyan people, who genuinely feared that as long as there was a prospect of his coming back there was a difficulty in building their future, can now get on with that future.

Public Disorder

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is undeniable that these criminals who looted, stole, rioted and caused intolerable damage to their victims must be dealt with by the police and the justice system. I ask the Prime Minister, do we regard these people, however abject their acts, as irreclaimable to society, at great cost to the police, the justice system and the prison system, or will we have positive policies to try, if at all possible, to reclaim them for society?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must never write people off, however bad they are. We must try to build a stronger society in which we can turn people’s lives around. One of the lessons from this is that too many people have been left for too long and we need much earlier intervention. This is something that Members from all parts of the House have spoken about. When we see children going wrong, we must intervene earlier rather than leaving them to fall out of school and lapse into a life of criminality.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I declare to the House that I was in Oxford university Labour club with Rupert Murdoch, that when I was chairman of the club he was unseated as secretary for breaking the campaigning rules, but that our relationship was sufficiently repaired that, by the time I worked for Harold Wilson at No. 10 Downing street and was his host at lunch, he had by then purchased the News of the World and The Sun, and both of those supported the Labour party in the 1970 election—for all the good that did!

The title of the debate demonstrates the Government’s shifty efforts to evade any sort of accountability for the events that have disgusted the nation over recent weeks. It is of course undeniable that there has been corrupt, possibly criminal, behaviour by senior figures at New Scotland Yard, and it is essential that these wrongdoings, both institutionally and by individuals, should be dealt with in the sternest way, particularly for the sake of the thousands of police officers doing a challenging job on behalf of the community.

It is undeniable too that there has been criminality in the News of the World, and that that criminality should be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. Senior figures in News International and News Corp have, however belatedly, expressed their contrition and, convincingly or otherwise, claimed ignorance of the worst excesses that have been revealed. I have to say that that reveals their inadequacy in holding the jobs that they did. When I worked at the Daily Mirror, which I did for nine years, and Hugh Cudlipp, that great journalist, was editorial director, he would have known what was going on—except that he would have stopped it going on before it happened. The standards have deteriorated in newspaper proprietorship.

It is difficult to reconcile what Rebekah Brooks told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday about payments to the police with what she told the Committee under my chairmanship on 11 March 2003:

“We have paid the police for information in the past.”

That was pretty categorical. She argued yesterday that it was not inappropriate for her to have the Prime Minister as a friend, and that is acceptable. On the other hand, it was entirely inappropriate for the Prime Minister to have Rebekah Brooks as a friend. The list of his meetings with journalists, dragged out of him in recent days, demonstrates an extraordinary cosiness with executives of News International newspapers, with nearly twice as many meetings with them as with all other media groups combined, including three stays at Chequers for Rebekah Brooks.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Member of the House, for giving way to me. If he is saying that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to have that close a relationship with Rebekah Brooks, by the same token would he say that it was wrong for the last Prime Minister to have had such a close relationship with Rupert Murdoch, to the extent that their children played together?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

He did not have that kind of relationship with Murdoch. He did pursue Murdoch too much, I grant the hon. Gentleman that, but he did not have that kind of close personal relationship that the present Prime Minister has had with Rebekah Brooks. No Prime Minister, almost certainly ever, has had such disproportionate contacts with one newspaper group and in such a short time. Heath, Thatcher and Major never had such chummy relationships with the media. Stanley Baldwin, referring in the 1930s to press excesses, spoke—the words were supplied to him by Rudyard Kipling—of

“Power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”

This Prime Minister has proved both incorrigible and suspect in his relationships with News International executives. The most notorious, of course, was his hiring of Andy Coulson as his head of communications. He played round that this afternoon when he answered questions, but the fact is that he should have been aware before appointing Coulson of Coulson’s 2003 admission to the Select Committee of payments to the police, followed by his claim that such payments to the police were within the law—which is impossible, since bribing the police is a criminal offence. To take on someone who has confessed to criminal activity and then lied about it is utterly culpable, especially since numerous warnings were sent to the Prime Minister not to take him on. I repeat what was said earlier: Rebekah Brooks made it very clear that Coulson was appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Odd things have gone on under the Prime Minister’s leadership of the Conservative party. He was imprecise and evasive when asked about the employment of Coulson’s former deputy Neil Wallis, who has been arrested by the police as part of the hacking investigation, and who did work for the Tories in the run-up to the general election. The warnings to the Prime Minister about Coulson seem not to have been passed on by Ed Llewellyn, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. That was a grave dereliction of duty. No previous Prime Minister would have accepted such conduct, but as we know, Wallis’s conduct was even more bizarre.

When John Yates, then assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, in advance of an arranged meeting with the Prime Minister, offered to brief him on phone hacking, Llewellyn rejected it, saying:

“We will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject.”

People go on about the inappropriateness of briefing the Prime Minister about operational police matters, but the offer was not to brief him about operational police matters, and if anyone tells me that the police do not brief the Prime Minister about operational matters relating to action against terrorism, which Yates was also in charge of, I say, “Pull the other one.”

Llewellyn was seeking to claim deniability on the issue, but no Prime Minister ought to need to claim deniability on any subject. The Prime Minister’s attitude to this entire imbroglio has been unacceptable. He has made statements about it outside the House and then had to be dragged to the House. This debate is the latest example. He held meetings with Rebekah Brooks right in the middle of the process of Government consideration of the News International bid for BSkyB, which was until recently regarded as a wave-through, and it would have been waved through if this scandal had not broken.

Today the Prime Minister was questioned again and again, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), about whether he had discussed the BSkyB takeover with Rebekah Brooks or anyone else from News International. He did not answer. He dodged the question. It is perfectly clear from his failure to respond that he discussed the BSkyB bid with News International, and if he wants to intervene now to deny it in categorical terms, I shall be delighted to give way. But he has not, and he will not.

The Government have behaved to Parliament and the country as no Government have behaved since the Profumo scandal. Their priority has been appeasing one brand of press baron. That has to come to an end; the Government cannot get out of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Foster]

I will in a minute.

We join both major political parties in saying that it is vital to acknowledge that there are some very good police officers and journalists, sadly including many who have lost their jobs because of what happened at News International.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that there are wonderful police officers—as there are in my constituency—and outstanding journalists, who have played an important part in this episode. I said to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that if Tony Blair had misbehaved, and that includes the visit to Australia, I disapproved. However, the current Government have had a greater cosiness with one newspaper empire than any other Government I have known.

[Mr Foster]

I regret allowing the right hon. Gentleman to intervene because, yet again, he is trying to engage in the party political knockabout for which the public will not forgive us. They want us to get on and sort out the mess. They want the police inquiry to get under way and be done properly this time around. They want the judge-led inquiry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set up to do its work as quickly as possible.

Yesterday we saw the excellent work of both Select Committees in their investigations. Sadly, we learned relatively little from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We got the welcome, but well-rehearsed contrition. We found that The Sun cannot tell the difference between a custard pie and a paper plate full of foam. We discovered that, bizarrely, Glenn Mulcaire’s legal fees continued to be paid. Thank goodness it has been announced that, as of today, those fees are no longer being paid. Above all, we discovered that there should be genuine concern about the corporate governance of News Corporation. We need to address that concern and its implications for us.

The Prime Minister rightly said that we must consider competition legislation—we certainly must. He also rightly said that we must consider plurality. I say to my right hon. Friend that we must consider not only when the test is applied—the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has already committed the Government to doing that—but what the plurality rules cover. I think that all hon. Members recognise that we currently base the definition on news and current affairs. Yet surely all hon. Members also acknowledge that a powerful drama can transform how we view our world and each other, and that a powerful comedy can have the same effect. When we consider plurality, we need to widen the remit of what is covered so that it is not confined to news and current affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I will make some progress.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, any considerations of plurality and revisions to the law on concentration of media ownership need to include the BBC, because it is such a major force in broadcasting. That is something that many of my hon. Friends will—

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a speaker at the Government Dispatch Box to say one thing at one moment and two minutes later totally deny that he said it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am afraid I must say that it is in order, and that it has in fact been happening for hundreds of years.

UN Security Council Resolution (Libya)

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to what Gaddafi has said. He has said chilling words about what he plans to do to his own country and people, and he must be stopped. I too heard the reported remarks about civilian aircraft. Be in no doubt that, even aside from a UN Security Council resolution, every country has the right under international law to self-defence—a right that could be exercised in full.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the merit of the operation to liberate Kuwait in 1991 was that it was finite and established order, and that the disaster of the war in Iraq in 2003 was that after it was won, efforts were made by outsiders to install a Government, which resulted in chaos and terrorism? Will he assure the House that those lessons have been learned?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It seems to me that we have to learn both the lessons of Iraq, by proceeding with the maximum Arab support and being very clear that there will be no army of occupation, and the lessons of Bosnia and not stand aside and witness a slaughter. It falls to Cabinets and Governments at this time, though, to recognise that no two situations are exactly alike. This is not Iraq; it is not Bosnia; it is not Lebanon; it is unique and different. We have to respond to it and use the right judgment to try to get our response correct. That is what this Government are determined to do, and as I have said, we are determined to take as many people with us as possible.

Japan and the Middle East

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, everyone should have the right to peaceful protest. In Bahrain, the King and the Crown Prince have been making efforts to try to have movement towards a more open and democratic society. Of course people will have debates about whether they are going far enough or fast enough, but they have made that effort. Bahrain obviously has the difficulty of quite a severe divide between some Sunni and Shi’a, which can make the situation more difficult, but I hope that they keep going down that path of reform, and not repression, which is the right track for these countries to take.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning utterly the barbaric slaughter inflicted on the Fogel family in a west bank settlement over the weekend? Does he agree that no response to that savagery could be more futile than the building of further settlements, and that the only way to stop this useless slaughter of innocent people—both Jews and Palestinians—is for Israel to sit down and talk?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Like others, I read about that case over the weekend and found what happened extremely disturbing. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem and seen the settlement building, particularly around east Jerusalem, can understand why the Palestinians feel so strongly about building on their land. There is a danger of the two-state solution being built away if we are not careful. That is why this Government have always taken a strong view about the settlements.

Libya and the Middle East

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that highlights the issues that I raised earlier. It was right to restore relations with Libya, but parameters and judgment needed to be brought to bear as well.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the vote cast by the United Kingdom at the Security Council on Israeli settlements, may I ask whether he, like Chancellor Merkel, received a reproachful telephone call from Netanyahu, and if so did he, like Chancellor Merkel, reply that he—Netanyahu—is the principal obstacle to negotiations and that he must get on and negotiate?

[The Prime Minister]

As it happens, I did not, on this occasion, get a reproachful phone call from Prime Minister Netanyahu. But if I had done, I am, for once, in full agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that I would have responded robustly in the way that he has suggested.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I agree with my hon. Friend and point out that no European country other than France does not have a threshold. Over the generations, we in this House have always regarded constitutional matters as of such fundamental importance as to require a free vote and to rule out the sort of programming and guillotining that we are seeing here. Yesterday, I had a mere two minutes in which to express the arguments on my amendment.

I heartily dislike this Bill and I believe that its effect will be exceedingly damaging to the Conservative party and exceedingly damaging to our national interest. I strongly urge my hon. Friends to vote for the threshold arrangements proposed by the noble Lords. I believe that doing so would be in the interests of the Conservative party, its individual members and its councillors who are soon coming up for local elections, as well as in the national interest of the electorate as a whole.

Other Members wish to speak, so I shall bring my remarks immediately to an end. The Government should be careful about what they wish for because it might come true.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who intervened a few moments ago, is of course absolutely right. The Conservatives have voted for thresholds in referendums whenever they felt it suited them and whenever they thought it would be to the disadvantage of a Labour Government. Indeed, Scottish devolution was delayed by 20 years because the Conservative party voted for a threshold on the referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979.

It is appropriate that this motion should stand in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats because this entire Bill is about the Liberal Democrats. Anybody who has the opportunity should read the Nuffield study, “The British General Election of 2010”, which makes it absolutely clear in a masterly piece of research that the sticking-point on whether the Liberal Democrats would go into a coalition with the Conservatives was whether the referendum that we are debating this evening would be introduced by a coalition Government. What the Government are doing—I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but he is absolutely right this evening—is rigging the British political system with this Bill. The Bill was introduced, and is being railroaded through, to placate 8% of the House of Commons; 92% of the House of Commons do not want it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to proceed on this point.

When I was shadow Home Secretary, I negotiated with the then Conservative Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, about a Representation of the People Bill—that is what Bills dealing with the political system and elections in this country used to be called— which he was introducing. The dog’s breakfast that is before us this evening is a misrepresentation of the people Bill, based on an obligation to placate the self-interest of the third party in the House. There is no doubt whatever about that.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to complete this segment of my argument, taking into account the limited time.

This is a partisan Bill. All the Representation of the People Bills that went through the House of Commons, from when I first entered the House, were agreed between the Government and the Opposition—I negotiated with Leon Brittan even down to the threshold for retaining a deposit—but not now. The Conservatives do not want the Bill. We are dealing not with the question of whether we are for or against the alternative vote; we are dealing with the question of whether a fundamental aspect of our British political system should be decided not on its principles, or on whether it is appropriate and admirable for the country, but on whether it suits the interests of a minority party, which wants to go on having coalitions, as that is the only way in which its useless Members would be able to sit on the Government Front Bench.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman referred to rigged referendums, but would a threshold not rig a referendum by blocking a change that the majority of those taking part wanted?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not necessarily agree with him.

[Paul Farrelly]

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) quoted not the Member for Deauville, or even Trouville, but the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). Does my right hon. Friend recognise that those of us who are more sympathetic to AV have legitimate concerns about its operation in practice because of the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats since the general election. They talk of five more years of the coalition, but we cannot be sure that they will not direct their supporters to use their second preference against the Labour party, for instance. In those circumstances, is it not reasonable to have a threshold, so that we can be certain that the British people have expressed a clear opinion?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

We do not know what the turnout will be on 5 May. What we do know, in my constituency, is that we will murder the Liberal Democrats in the local elections, whatever the threshold. My hon. Friend’s point is relevant, because the issue is not whether one is for or against AV. The debate is not about that; it is about whether we seek to appease a small minority of the House of Commons by rigging our precious electoral system, which has served us well.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

This is an extraordinary occasion in that the unelected House of Parliament is, with absolutely no sense of irony, telling the elected half of Parliament how to conduct a ballot. The simple principle is that in elections and referendums it is the people who turn up who decide the result, not the people who do not turn up.

In my brief remarks last night I recalled many election results in Bristol—I am sure you would have found this very interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been in the Chair—when the turnout had fallen below 40%. I have since looked up a few more statistics. For the European Parliament elections in 2009, only 34% of the British public turned out to vote. I say in all candour to Conservative coalition colleagues that I do not recall any of them saying at the time that that was not a valid election result. In fact, I recall them saying that the Conservative party had won that election.

Debate on the Address

Gerald Kaufman Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak immediately after the Prime Minister.

Let me take this opportunity to thank my constituents for re-electing me, and for re-electing me with an increased majority. Let me also thank them for the excellent local election results that we had on the same day, including two gains from the Liberal Democrats and a board swept almost clear of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

My constituents voted Labour on 6 May because they wanted the continuation of a Labour Government. That Government had brought them more jobs and more job opportunities after they had experienced some of the worst unemployment in the country under the Conservatives; a new deal against which both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voted; a national minimum wage; winter fuel payments and bus passes for pensioners; increased money for the national health service and new hospitals; Sure Start and newly built, brand new schools; antisocial behaviour orders and more police; and housing modernisation. Those were all achievements of the Labour Government, frequently opposed by the Conservatives and/or the Liberal Democrats in the House.

As I have said, the Conservatives opposed those measures, but I expected no more of them, and I expect no more of this Conservative-dominated Government now. We know what the Conservatives are: they are our legitimate opponents, who stand for values different from those for which we stand in our party, and there is a clear dividing line between us. Now, though, we have a new phenomenon: Liberal Democrats sharing in government.

As my right hon. and hon. Friends will know, for many years—in our constituencies and nationally—the Liberal Democrats have grubbed up votes by making promises that they knew they would never have to fulfil; but now they share the responsibility of government, and will be judged not on what they say, not on what they promise, but on what they do. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will be watching them, and judging their performance against what they promised.

For example, in the previous two elections the Liberal Democrats conned students by promising them the earth. In their manifesto this month, they promised to

“scrap unfair university tuition fees so everyone has the chance to get a degree”.

Well, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury smashed that pledge yesterday with 10,000 fewer university places. We will be watching the Liberal Democrats on that.

We will be watching the Liberal Democrats on winter fuel payments—which the Conservatives opposed—to see whether they are continued, together with the bus passes that we introduced. We will be watching them on the national minimum wage, which the Conservatives opposed and which they said would bring mass unemployment. We will be watching them on health. Yesterday’s statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury included cuts in the national health service which they were too dishonest to specify. We will be watching them on policing and law and order. Both parties opposed antisocial behaviour orders—oh yes, they did—and now we will be watching to see what they do about the level of policing. The Liberal Democrats promised in their manifesto thousands more police on the beat. We shall have to see whether that is continued. We shall have to see whether they continue Sure Start. We shall have to ensure that building of brand new schools in my constituency and in those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue.

Yesterday, the Government made a statement about a fund to help build 4,000 new houses. What “help” means is not very clear, but if they keep the promise, there will be six new houses in every constituency in the country. That will scarcely help to solve the housing problem.

On international development, the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to increase the United Kingdom’s aid budget. Yesterday, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government cut money for international development. [Hon. Members: “No.”] Oh yes—it is in the statement by the Chief Secretary. In their manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would work to end the blockade of Gaza. We will be watching to see what the Government’s policy is on the middle east, because there was not a word in the Queen’s Speech about that.

I say something else to the Liberal Democrats: they will have to indulge in some internal house cleaning. Their candidate against me at the general election, Qassim Afzal, went round the constituency to mosques and other places where Muslims gather, telling people to vote against me because I am a Jew. That is what their candidate did. I was told that again and again by Muslim voters. My Muslim voters are possessed of a decency and generosity of spirit utterly alien to the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency, because they organised for me as they never had before and voted for me in many thousands.

The incidents that took place in my constituency as part of an anti-Semitic campaign went on and on. One of my constituents, a Muslim, told me how the Liberal Democrat candidate Qassim Afzal came to his house, which had a poster of mine in the window, and said, “You cannot have a poster in your window of a Jew. Take it down.” I told two Liberal Democrat Members before Parliament was dissolved that that was what their candidate in Gorton was doing. They were horrified. They said that they would bring it to the attention of their leadership. I do not know whether they did. I do know that their Liberal Democrat candidate, against the decency and humanity of my Muslim constituents, went on conducting an anti-Semitic campaign right through to polling day.

I say to the Liberal Democrat leader, now the Deputy Prime Minister, that if he did not know about that before, he should have done. His MPs told me that they had told him. He knows about it now. I will wait to see what he does to deal with an overtly anti-Semitic candidate who fought an anti-Semitic, and personally anti-Semitic, election campaign. If the Deputy Prime Minister does not take swift action to deal with that person, I will know that he accepts that anti-Semitism is a run-of-the-mill form of campaigning by Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] Well, it is up to him. That is what their candidate did, disgusting thousands of Muslims in my constituency. It is up to the Liberal Democrats to decide whether those are acceptable campaigning tactics.

We in this House, as a Labour Opposition, will scrutinise everything that the Government do and we will campaign for the socialist values for which my constituents in Gorton voted and will go on voting. The people on the Government Benches are together in an unholy alliance. The electorate will tumble to that sooner or later. This Government have the seeds of their own self-destruction within them. It is for us as Labour Members of Parliament to advance policies that are for the benefit of the people and that expose the shifty foundations on which this Government are based.