§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Secretary of State for Energy made a statement on Enterprise Oil. He assured the House that no company would be allowed to purchase more than 10 per cent. of the shares. On the stock market this morning, Rio Tinto-Zinc has purchased just under 30 per cent. I ask for a statement to be made to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. This turn of events shows once again that Government policy is in a shambles. Will the Secretary of State now make a statement on what is to happen and what action the Government will take?
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What point of order arises from that question?
§ Mr. SpeakerAbsolutely none, but I believe that the Secretary of State is about to respond.
§ Mr. WalkerIn view of the inaccuracy of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and in view of the fact that the next question on the Order Paper is on this subject, I would like to answer it, if you will give your permission, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to ask it.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have reached the end of Question Time. I had to make a judgment on question 1, with which eight other questions were answered. It seemed to me that this was a major matter facing the House today.
§ Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister has indicated, uncharacteristically, a willingness to reply to the question, would it not be for the convenience of the House if he did so?
§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that you are in difficulty because of the strictures in relation to extending Question Time, but very important matters of public probity and responsibility are at issue. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I crave your indulgence in allowing the Secretary of State to reply to the question put down by my hon. Friend for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
§ Mr. SpeakerIn view of the importance of the matter, have I the leave of the House to allow the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to put his question?
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopNo.
§ Mr. SpeakerI believe that the consensus of the House is that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to ask his question.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whether you should allow a question after the end of Question Time and whether wholly spurious points should be permitted to masquerade as points of order are wholly different matters.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that, if a point which is in no way a point of order is allowed to progress, there will be no end to the spurious points of order that will be raised. 20 Furthermore, if something requires the leave of the House and an hon. Member shouts "No", that is the end of the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Allow me to dispose of this matter. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is a constitutional expert and I am most grateful for his views on the matter. However, I must take into account the fact that the calling of questions today was in my hands. I allowed question 1 to run rather longer than usual because of the importance of the matter. I am in the hands of the House. The hon. Member for Tiverton is right —there are no rules that allow me to do this—but if the House wishes the question to be asked I am prepared to allow it. I believe that it is the wish of the House that question 7 be asked.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not need any more points of order on this matter.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take the point of order after question 7 has been asked.
§ Mr. O'NeillI ask the Secretary of State for Energy question 7—whether he will make a statement on the sale of Enterprise Oil.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerThe sale of Enterprise Oil for £392.2 million was completed last week. Dealings in the shares commenced this morning and prices have varied from a small discount to a small premium.
RTZ has announced that it intends to purchase further shares in the market. However, as a result of the decision taken by the Government last week that no individual company should obtain more than 10 per cent. of the equity as a result of the flotation, any further purchase of shares by RTZ, or any other company, will be subject to the normal rules of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers and the Council for Securities Industries. These rules apply progressively to holdings of 15 per cent. or more.
The Government stated clearly in the prospectus that in its early years, this company would be free from outside control. I would reaffirm that it is the Government's firm intention to use the powers available to them, including the use of the special share, to secure this end.
§ Mr. O'NeillIs not the Secretary of State's statement yet another humiliation for the Government? Does it not mean that the 10 per cent. figure has moved to 15 per cent.? Does it not mean that the flotation is thoroughly disreputable and should be withdrawn at the earliest possible opportunity?
§ Mr. WalkerLike the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that I clearly referred in my statement to 10 per cent. of the issue. There has never been any concealment from the market or anyone else that, after the issue was made, there would be perfectly free dealings in the company's shares and that if they took place the provisions of the special share would come into operation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Salford, East, did not read my statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have let the question be asked, and we must move on.