HC Deb 22 February 1982 vol 18 cc601-2
Mr. Merlyn Rees Leeds, South)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the need for the Government to impose a moratorium on dealings in Amersham International shares until a full investigation has been made into the sale of Amersham International at a price that will lead to a substantial loss to the British taxpayer. The matter of the sale of shares in Amersham International, a company concerned with radioactive products and services, is specific. It is not part of the wider ideology of the Government in selling off the shares of Cable and Wireless and British Aerospace in the past or the British National Oil Corporation in the future. The Government received the approval of the House for all those sales What is at issue is the method by which Amersham International shares are to be sold.

It is an important matter because of the events of last Thursday when applications worth £1.5 billion were made for a £71 million offer. Consequently the shares are expected to rise to 180p. Of the £71 million offer, the Government will receive only £63.7 million. This is the third offer for sale of a company that has been grossly over-subscribed as a result of Government policy. Discussion of the matter is urgent and important because dealings start on the Stock Exchange next Thursday. Time is short for discussion of the methods of sale and of the need for a moratorium on the dealings in view of what happened last Thursday.

There is a need for a full investigation before dealings begin. What happened last week was described as mass hysteria in the City. The low offer price means that the Exchequer has been robbed of funds for desirable public expenditure on hospitals and schools, or to reduce the PSBR.

We have just heard a statement as a result of which the Government hope to save £6 million, whereas the losses involved in the sale of these shares are much greater. No statement has been made to the House. The House is jealous of its control of Supply. The method of privatisation chosen by the Government places it outside our control. Perhaps in the long run the matter can be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, but before further proceedings take place on Thursday the House should discuss the matter.

The happenings last week were unedifying. It has been said that The stock market's preference for a fixed price is founded on the practical view that nothing attracts subscription so wel as the promise of a premium; greed oils the wheels. Time is running out. It is important that there should be a moratorium before more greed is put before the interests of the nation. Given the shortage of time, I know of no other way to proceed than through Standing Order No. 9. The House should discuss urgently the matter of the sale of Amersham International.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the need for the Government to impose a moratorium on dealings in Amersham International shares until a full investigation has been made into the sale of Amersham International at a price that will lead to a substantial loss to the British taxpayer. The House listened with concern to the right hon. Gentleman, who raised a serious matter. He especially drew attention to the time factor concerned. However, the House knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account all the factors that are set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. Like the rest of the House, I was concerned at what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Thornaby)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will have struck the House as peculiar that, on an Opposition Supply day, an Opposition Front Bench spokesman should raise under Standing Order No. 9 such a matter, with which many of us may have sympathy. Many of us think it desirable that the House—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to a point of order on which I can rule, otherwise he will be taking up the time of the House.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Is it not an abuse of Standing Order No. 9 when the Opposition have time available to debate the matter, which many of us would like to do—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. If I had thought that there had been an abuse of our rules, I would have said so. As a matter of fact, I had to give anxious consideration to the application of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) before rejecting it.

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind your ruling, may I draw your attention to the fact that this point was raised in Committee last Thursday? Therefore, I should have thought that the first opportunity to raise the matter was on Friday and not today.

Mr. Speaker

I have given my ruling to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mike Thomas (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am taking no further points of order.