Wytch Farm Oilfield (Hansard, 13 March 1984)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
I am grateful to have the privilege to speak in this Adjournment debate, and to present what I believe is a scandal arising out of a Government decision.
First, I wish to inform the House that, as a member of the Select Committee on Energy, I received papers yesterday from the British Gas Corporation, arising out of the request from the Chairman of the Select Committee for answers to certain questions. I wish to give the House the categorical assurance that, knowing full well that I was to speak in this Adjournment debate, I have not looked at the papers that were sent to members of the Select Committee yesterday, although the envelope is in my possession.
I have always condemned the Government's decision and, indeed, their policy in selling off assets belonging to the people of this country. The instruction to the British Gas Corporation to do just that with its share in the Wytch farm oilfield was in my view an appalling decision. If the sale goes through, it will rob the British people of assets of over £200 million. While that is bad enough, the serious question that arises concerns the legalities of the instructions given by the then Secretary of State to sell the oilfield off to a certain bidder at a certain price.
Arising out of the Attorney-General's repeated refusal to answer the questions of hon. Members, there has been no alternative but to seek—as we have done, and in which we have been successful—an Adjournment debate.
There is a curious history to the transaction, which has been imminent for a very long time.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Before my hon. Friend deals with the history, I believe that he is referring to the answers that were given by the Attorney-General at the last Attorney-General's question time, following a substantive question by me, which followed a substantive question three weeks earlier by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Attorney-General. Will my hon. Friend accept that, although technically the Attorney-General may be right, given all the circumstances of Wytch farm, and the promises that were made during the consideration of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, those of us who were on the Committee will remember very well the undertakings that were given? In the spirit of that Committee stage, it is unsatisfactory for the Attorney-General to shelter behind the internal workings of Government, and it behoves him to be much franker.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
I share my hon. Friend's views. If the Attorney-General had been more forthcoming, it might well have been unnecessary to initiate this Adjournment debate.
The history of the matter is very curious. The transaction, which has been imminent for so long, and which may be about to be concluded, is very interesting. Various estimates have been made of the value of this asset, but the true economic value of the shares appears to be approximately £400 million. The Government are certainly anxious to dispose of this valuable asset, but I understand that the corporation has not shown the same enthusiasm. After some years of consideration, however, 340 the corporation may be about to comply with the Government's wishes despite its belief that it is being made to sell at a price substantially below what it regards as the value of the assets. The question for the corporation is whether it is protected in law for what it is about to do. I hope and assume that the House would wish to ascertain whether that is so.
In October 1981 the then Secretary of State for Energy directed the corporation to dispose of its interest in Wytch farm under section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1972. The order setting out the direction was debated in Parliament and approved.
In March 1983 the Secretary of State for Energy instructed the corporation that the Government considered it both commercially justifiable and in the national interest for the corporation, in the light of offers received, to take forward negotiations with the Dorset group of oil companies, and instructed the corporation to proceed accordingly. I understand that at that time the Dorset group was the highest bidder. One may argue about whether the highest bid represents the market value, but I am not just talking about market value. I am talking about the true economic value of the shares.
An instruction of that kind rather than a statutory direction is an unknown animal in this part of the statute book. Why did the Secretary of State give an instruction apparently without the force of law behind him when he could have issued a more detailed direction under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 which by then had come into effect? He seems either to have forgotten that or to have been unhappy about those statutory powers, which might have given him aid—or perhaps it was because the second direction would have had to be drafted properly according to the statute and debated in Parliament.
It was easier to take the chairman of the board on one side and twist his arm so that the board would undertake to do as the Minister told him, but can the board be happy about that unless the Government find a way to absolve the board? The board may find itself in considerable difficulty and in breach of its statutory duties. To protect their personal position, the members of the board are entitled to a proper direction from the Government or to be absolved in some way if their position is found wanting by the courts.
Against that background and the way in which these matters have been handled, it is difficult to see consistency in the Government's professed respect for law and order. The Conservatives claim to be the party of law and order and to stick to the rules. They never fail to refer to actions on picket lines and rightly try to get Opposition Members to associate themselves with their position. I share that view, but the Government cannot preach law and order in one respect if they are not prepared to stand by the law in another, and it seems clear that in this instance they have failed to do so. If the Government were confident that their instruction was within the framework of the law, the Attorney-General should have found no difficulty in saying so to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
The problem for the British Gas Corporation now is whether the sale, if completed, can be held to arise out of an unlawful instruction and, if so, who will carry the can. Will it be the corporation for carrying out the instruction which the Secretary of State had no statutory power to make, or will it be the Secretary of State himself? As I have said, I understand that the sale is imminent. 341 Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the Minister of State today that the Government will be failing in their duty if they do not stop the sale.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It may be asked why some of us are too impatient to wait until Sir Denis Rooke has given his evidence to the Select Committee on Energy. It is precisely because Select Committees by their nature take time and because the sale is imminent that we look forward very much to the Minister's answer today. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we have some time in hand some of the rest of us may be allowed to have a say after the Minister has spoken.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
I am not in a position to know whether the Select Committee will decide to take evidence on that aspect, although I hope that it will do so. I believe, however, that the position is so serious that if we cannot get assurances from the Minister of State today he has an obligation to the House by virtue of the position that he holds to stop the sale at least until the Select Committee has decided whether to take such evidence and, if it decides to do so, until it has reported. I see no ground for any Government or any reasonable Minister to refuse such an application.
If the Government encourage the selling off of the country's assets at under 50 per cent. of their true economic value, their policy can only be the doctrinaire view that privatisation should be carried out at any cost. If that is so, let the Government say so and let the people of this country decide whether they share that view. It is a scandal that in the same period of time the same person—the former Secretary of State for Energy, now Chancellor of the Exchequer—can be instructed to give away the country's assests to the tune of £220 million while at the same time instructing the chairman of the gas and electricity authorities, without any statutory power to do so, to increase gas and electricity prices.
I am not a great legal mind, but I believe that the Secretary of State has no statutory powers to give such instructions to the chairman of a nationalised industry either to increase prices or to sell off assets. His only power is the threat hanging over the heads of the chairman of nationalised industries that if they do not carry out the Government's instructions they will be kicked out. That is his only possible lever. I should hope that people in such powerful positions would be big enough and brave enough to resist such instructions when they know full well that the person making them has no statutory power so to do.
Will the Minister of State confirm whether the instruction by the Secretary of State in March 1983 to sell off these shares was legal? Had he the legal powers to do that? If not, who would take the responsibility for selling off something outside the law? Will he agree that the sale of the British Gas Corporation share in Wytch farm oilfield will not take place until the legal position is clear and the Select Committee on Energy has at least had an opportunity of examining the matter, and that if the Committee decides to do so the Government will wait until it has taken evidence?

§ The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject in the House. It is certainly important 342 and I am very glad of the chance to put the record straight on a number of the issues which the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) raised. However, the kind of language which he used in the early part of his speech, describing this matter as a scandal and robbing the people, is quite out of place in relation to the subject itself, to what has taken place and to what I shall be saying in this debate.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I began to wonder what new information he would bring before the House which it had not had already. I feel that to some extent we were treated to a replay of some of the debates we have had previously regarding the general issue of privatisation. The principle of this issue has been debated at length in the House on a number of occasions, and the Government's policy is absolutely clear on it.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I made it clear that, if we had been able to get answers on the legality question from the Attorney-General, I probably would not have initiated this Adjournment debate tonight.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. I hope that later I shall give him further clarification.
By way of background, may I say that, although I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me on this, I think he understands the generality of the Government's case in relation to the sale of these assets, which simply stems from our belief that there are certain activities, of which the oil production activity of the British Gas Corporation is one, which it is not appropriate for such an organisation to carry out and which are better carried out by the private sector.
I certainly do not mean to belittle the achievements of the British Gas Corporation or its staff in regard to oil production. I know from my experience in recent months that there are few corporations, private or public, which could have achieved with such skill the switch to North sea gas carried out so successfully by the British Gas Corporation. I pay tribute to the corporation for its skill and professionalism in appraising and developing the Wytch farm field. It has been a job well done and the policy decision which the Government have taken is no reflection on the corporation's conduct or ability to develop that asset.
The question remains, however, whether there is a better way to run those parts of the industry which could survive and prosper in a freely competitive situation. I would find it difficult to find a clearer example than the oil industry of an industry which should be in the private sector. Indeed, we are the only major industrialised Western country in which such a significant amount of natural resources have been held in the public sector. I believe that that is of significance.
We have already taken a number of significant steps in the direction of returning nationalised oil assets to the private sector—for example, the successful flotation of the majority shareholding in Britoil. We are also proceeding now with our preparations to create the new British venture based on British Gas's former North Sea interests, Enterprise Oil.
The Wytch farm sale is another facet of that same policy, and it is entirely consistent with our fundamental policy objectives. It is unavoidable, of course, that from 343 time to time British Gas will strike oil in its search for gas both on shore and off shore. I certainly do not question in any way the corporation's motives or competence. I believe, however, that it is in the interests of no one, including the corporation, for it to become involved in owning and operating oilfields. Indeed, it is difficult to see any reason why a publicly owned gas utility, whose main statutory duty is, as one would expect, to supply gas to consumers as economically as possible, should devote its energies and resources to fringe activities such as developing and operating an on-shore oilfield, particularly when this task could more easily and more naturally be carried out by the private sector.
It is not unfair to say that this is something with which the last Labour Government were not totally out of sympathy. For particular purposes they sold off a certain amount of BP shares. Perhaps even more interestingly, they took powers under section 12 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act 1975 to transfer the oil interests of the Gas Corporation to BNOC. Since they took those powers, clearly even they found it questionable whether British Gas should be involved in oil exploration and development on the scale which it then was.
I make no apology for dwelling on these background points because it is important in a debate such as this to set our policy in context because some of the policy may not necessarily conflict with what I divine to be the intentions of the previous Labour Government as embodied in their legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the current position in relation to the sale, and I am very happy to deal with that. As the House knows, the Government's intention to initiate a sale of British Gas's 50 per cent. interest in what is known as PL.089, which includes the Wytch farm field, was announced as long ago as the summer of 1981. The then Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), laid before Parliament a draft direction under section 7 of the Gas Act 1972, which required the corporation to dispose of its interests in the licence on 26 June of that year.
On 27 July a motion to disapprove the direction failed to find favour with this House, and the direction entered into force on 13 October 1981. That, of course, is the basis of the legality of the sale of Wytch farm.
One of the main points which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the legality of the instruction which my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—gave to the British Gas Corporation on 30 March 1983. There should be no confusion. That was an instruction and, as such, it is not legally binding. I am sure that the BGC will make its view clear when it gives evidence to the Select Committee. My understanding is that the BGC is aware that the instruction is not legally binding and that it would not be illegal to conclude a sale at a price below the BGC's view of its economic value, provided that it was of the opinion that that was a reasonable course of action in all the circumstances.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Am I right in interpreting the Minister's remarks as meaning that no final decision will be made until the due processes of the Select Committee have been gone through and that no irrevocable steps will be taken until the Committee has done its work?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
That is not what I said. I shall deal with the timetable in a moment. We halve still to receive the final proposal from the BGC. The matter is still under consideration. I and my predecessor have told the House that when that conclusion is reached it will be reported to the House. We do not know how that will fit into the Select Committee's timetable. It must take its own decisions. Consideration is well advanced, but I do not know when the Committee and the BGC will submit their conclusions to my right hon. Friend. I hope that I have made that clear.
Presumably the view of the BGC will be available to the Select Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford implied that that is already available, although, properly and fairly, he did not use it. I repeat that it would not be illegal for the BGC to conclude a sale at a price below its view of the economic value so long as it was of the opinion that to do so was reasonable in all the circumstances. I understand that that is the BGC's view. I accept that the hon. Gentleman may wish to see a different course of action flowing from it.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? He has conceded that the Secretary of State has no legal powers to instruct the BGC to sell its shares in the oilfield. Why, if there are no statutory powers to enforce it, is the oilfield being sold when the BGC does not want to sell it?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The BGC, knowing the legal situation, decided to act on that instruction. I have spelt out the BGC's view and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read carefully what I have said. There is no question of the Government or the BGC doing anything illegal and nothing has taken place that we believe to be illegal. The hon. Gentleman said that the instruction had been given illegally, but there is a significant difference between that and saying that the instruction is not legally binding. I am endeavouring to be helpful. I am not trying to cloud the issue. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads what I have said his understanding will be clearer, because I have spoken advisedly.
The BGC has to make its own decision on what it believes is a reasonable course of action in all the circumstances and on the value. As far as I am aware, it has not yet reached that conclusion, but as soon as it does it will undoubtedly convey that view to my right hon. Friend and we shall, if necessary, continue discussions and then report the conclusions to the House as we have promised. We have no intention of ducking that undertaking which I have already freely given.
The hon. Gentleman referred to valuations which formed one of the reasons for the debate tonight. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sale was conducted by the BGC. The Government accepted its advice that the sale should be carried out by means of an open tender to the oil companies. The BGC felt that that was the best way to ensure that a proper price was achieved which the Government have always made clear was an essential element in the successful conclusion of the sale. Once the necessary preparation for the sale had been made, BGC invited tenders, in July 1982. Several bids were received and the auction process went through several rounds. The BGC and the Government agreed that the best bid was that made by the Dorset consortium of five independent British companies.
345 As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in May last year when he was Secretary of State for Energy, British Petroleum, which owns 50 per cent. of the licence interest, said that it did not intend to exercise its right to match the Dorset group's bid. That fact, together with the tendering process, hardly suggests that the Dorset offer was below market value or that the assets in question were being sold off at a knockdown price. It is clear that the market was thoroughly tested. The hon. Gentleman fairly made the point that he was interested not only in that but in whether the assets had been properly valued by the market. The real value of the assets is a slightly more difficult area of debate, but I believe that in our society and economy the testing of the market is the proper way to deal with the matter.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Will the Minister give a reference for his quotation from remarks by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Energy?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I cannot give the Hansard reference, but my right hon. Friend informed the House of the British Petroleum decision on 9 May 1983.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The right hon. Gentleman appears to have given different impressions at various times. He gave a different view in Committee from the view that he gave from the Dispatch Box. That is why I have asked for the reference.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I hope that the information that I have given the hon. Gentleman will help him to check the facts. I was not in the Department at that time. I have checked the record throughly, and I believe matters to be absolutely clear.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford asked whether the market had been sufficiently tested. I believe that it was tested properly, for the two major reasons that I mentioned earlier—the tender procedure with the different rounds that occurred and the fact that British Petroleum did not seek to match the bid, which it had the right to do.
There is a question whether the valuation is relevant or properly related to what the hon. Gentleman and others may feel is a proper valuation of the assets. I cannot enter into that matter in great detail tonight. Obviously the corporation will express a view. The Select Committee might cross-examine the corporation if it chooses to take matters further. I counsel a certain amount of caution. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a knockdown price and of instructions for sale at a certain price to a certain bidder. It is not quite as clear cut as that. He mentioned a value of £400 million. No doubt the matter will be open to further scrutiny.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to duck my responsibilities. Until I have the final conclusions from the corporation it would be wrong to comment in detail. Nevertheless, one significant factor is the valuation put on the assets by Wood Mackenzie and Company, a well-known firm of stockbrokers. It is generally accepted in the House and in the oil industry as having a well informed and authoritative view on such matters. In February of this year it produced a paper that analysed the position at Wytch farm. It is the most up-to-date published 346 independent valuation. It makes a valuation at a 10 per cent. discount rate—much depends on the discount rate applied to a valuation—of £165.5 million.
I am not founding anything on that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a certain figure, and I am also mentioning a certain figure—one that has come from an extremely authoritative source based on certain assumptions. I commend the paper to the hon. Gentleman. The firm has no direct interest in the matter. It is acknowledged that the company gives an objective analysis of oil matters. Many of the figures that are bandied about are based on hypothesis, which is dangerous. I shall not enter into the game of comparing one figure with another. The time to do that will be when we have the final recommendations and conclusions from the British Gas Corporation. I give that figure only to put the matter into perspective.
The BGC went through the process of tendering and a number of rounds of biddings. As the result of that, both the corporation and the Government agreed that the best bid came from the Dorset bidding group. At that stage the bid was only in an outline form and it was not possible to form a final view. The Government concluded that the offer was sufficiently attractive to merit detailed negotiations with a view to completion of the sale. It is no secret that, although the bid was clearly the best available from the market, the BGC felt that it was not sufficiently attractive. Against that background, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Energy told the corporation that the Government felt that it would be commercially justifiable and in the national interest to proceed. I have already described to the House what I understand to be the corporation's legal view of where it stands on that matter.
Resulting negotiations have, as we all know, proved to be fairly long and complex. It is only recently that the last remaining details have been sorted out and the final versions of the necessary various agreements been produced. As I have already said, I understand that the BGC has yet to reach a final view on the deal that has emerged from these deliberations. It has not formally remitted the details of the transaction to the Government, together with any advice that it might wish to give. It is entitled—and we would expect it—to present its views to the Government. That is why I cannot say what will happen.
Hon. Members will understand that the Government must consider all the aspects of the sale, including any impact resulting from the Budget changes announced today, before we reach any final conclusion. It would be wrong for me, in my position of responsibility, finally to make up my mind before I am in possession of the full facts. However, no one should take that responsible attitude as a sign of any weakening of our commitment to carry through our policy. We intend to proceed to a sale. However, that must rightly depend on the final conclusion of the BGC and the views that it expresses. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Government still believe that the sale should go ahead. I say that in direct reply to the hon. Gentleman's direct question.
I hope that I have dealt not only with the general background but with some of the narrative—which is important. The hon. Gentleman has given us an opportunity to focus our attention on the issue. I hope that I have clarified the legal position that he mentioned, and also the position of the valuation. I commend the Government's policy to the House. The sale of the BGC interest in Wytch farm will reduce the size of the public 347 sector and the effect that it has on the public sector borrowing requirement—both of which are correct, proper and important economic policy aims.
It is even more important that we are taking an important step forward towards our aim of opening nationalised industries to private capital and increasing competition in both the public and private sectors. I believe that this will be achieved without damaging the development of the gas industry or the interests of gas consumers. Indeed, the Government expect both the gas industry and gas consumers to benefit from the implementation of their general policy, of which the development we are discussing is but a small part. The House has been kept informed at all stages. The essential and original legal processes were debated in the House, and that is the basis on which we have proceeded. A judgment on valuation can be made when we receive the conclusions of the British Gas Corporation. If the Select Committee decides to proceed to a further inquiry, the Government will pay attention to anything that it may say.
When the Select Committee has wished to act swiftly in considering any issue, it has shown itself capable of doing so, and it has done so in recent weeks. I have no doubt that it will form its own opinion once it has considered the papers from my Department and the corporation.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Can the Minister give an assurance that if the corporation decides on the basis of a commercial judgment that it does not want to continue the negotiations leading to a sale it will not be subject to pressure from the Government to go ahead with the proposed sale?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I cannot give an undertaking on such a hypothetical circumstance. If the corporation took such a view, it would be necessary to know its reasons for arriving at it. The central and most important issue is still to be presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself by the corporation, but over the past seven or eight months my right hon. Friend and I have had regular discussions with the corporation on several smaller but complex issues that have arisen during the negotiations. We have managed to resolve the problems as we have gone along. I should be happy if the corporation were to speak for itself, but I believe that the smaller issues have been dealt with amicably, sensibly, and constructively. I do not wish to prejudice the final stage of the negotiations by saying that in one set of circumstances we would do one thing and that in another set we would do something else. I believe that at the final stage we can bring matters to a satisfactory and positive conclusion.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford for raising this issue on the Adjournment debate. I hope that I have been positive and constructive in my response so that he understands where matters stand. I shall consider seriously what he has said in what I hope are the final stages of the negotiations.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for raising this issue at such a timely stage so that it is not too late, even at the eleventh hour, to take a different course.
I listened to the Minister of State with considerable care. I chose not to contribute to the debate before he 348 replied as I wanted to hear precisely the argument that he chose to deploy. As always, the right hon. Gentleman was courteous and civil. He was a great deal more courteous and civil than the former Secretary of State for Energy the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was taking the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill through Committee.
It may be thought that I have no direct constituency interest in the issue in question. However, I have a vested interest of the mind because, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and a number of other colleagues, I spent many hours in Committee Room 11 discussing this and related issues. Once one has invested so much time and energy in a particular subject, the matter becomes a sustained issue.
The Minister and I have been colleagues for nearly 20 years as Scottish Members. He is one of a decreasing number of Ministers who cares about the informed opinions of his parliamentary colleagues and about the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not understand why he cannot say that no irrevocable step will be taken until the Select Committee has reported.
The Select Committee on Energy, on which I do not have the privilege to serve, comprises a number of serious and distinguished colleagues who will not arrive at a view lightly. It is something of an insult to them that the Minister is unable to say, "We shall wait until you have reported, provided that the time taken is within reason." I think that I have the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford in saying that there would be no unnecessary procrastination on the part of the Select Committee. I am sure that it would tackle the issue seriously and with dispatch. In any event, the Conservative majority on the Select Committee would not allow any delaying tactics.
Why cannot the Minister say clearly, as I am sure would be his personal wish, "Of course we shall wait until the Select Committee has heard Sir Denis Rooke's evidence and the evidence of others involved and has come to a conclusion"? Those of us who have listened attentively to the Minister are still not clear about the difficulties that would be caused by waiting for the Select Committee's report. I shall, of course, allow the Minister to intervene if he is able to put my fears at rest.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The Select Committee has invited answers to a number of questions from my Department, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and from the corporation. It has not decided yet whether it will investigate those matters. I understand that the evidence is already in the hands of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman's overtures have, as always, been made reasonably and constructively, but we do not know whether the Select Committee will carry out a further investigation. It may be that it will not do so. A conclusion has not been reached, but if the Select Committee quickly submits a view my right hon. Friend will clearly pay attention to the views of the House as expressed by the Committee.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Lofthouse
rose—

§ Mr. Dalyell
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
I have already said that the Select Committee has not yet decided what will be its next investigation. However, it will meet tomorrow morning to decide on what issue it will next take evidence.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It is not right to discuss the business of private meetings, nor shall I do so, of groups within the House. However, I understood that Sir Denis Rooke had told a number of us that he was submitting evidence. It was on that ground that it was thought right not to press him too hard. Sir Denis behaved perfectly properly and I understood that he was submitting evidence.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Sir Denis was submitting evidence on the request of the Chairman of the Select Committee to answer certain specific questions. That is the evidence to which Sir Denis referred. I understand that he has submitted that evidence.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Until these matters are considered, I hope that the Minister will take on board the feelings of a number of hon. Members.
The second question is about the reserves. I understand that the Wood Mackenzie report, published in February, is based on data that became available last year. It is said that the reserves in the Wytch farm complex—for that is what it is—are in fact markedly greater than 160.5 million, and that the latest geological survey reveals considerable supplies of gas or oil at a much deeper level than has hitherto been thought to exist in Dorset.
Do the Government have any information about the reserves being significantly larger in this area than was thought at the time when the data were collected for the Wood Mackenzie assessment?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point specifically, but I assure him that before we or the British Gas Corporation come to a conclusion on this matter we will look at the most recent credible data. All the data are available to us and we will consider the decision in the light of them.

§ Mr. Dalyell
That is a most useful assurance.
There is then the question of precedent. Many of us feel that if we simply allow the Wytch farm argument to go by default we shall be setting a precedent for the other onshore discoveries that we hope will be made. One's experience in this House is that sometimes matters that looked fairly simple—for example, one thinks of Amersham International—turn out to be far more complex and far more detrimental to the long-term interests of the Treasury and the public purse than they appeared at first glance.
The Minister complained that my hon. Friend used the phrase, "robbing the people". But in this case the Government are selling off public assets—and how. My hon. Friend is not the only one who is using the phrase, "robbing the people". It is widely thought that, with their privatisation plans, the Government are selling the silver to meet the household needs of the moment.
We are concerned about the long-term assets of the country, and my hon. Friend's use of the word "scandal" is potentially proper. Until we have more information, I myself would hesitate to use that word but, potentially, that is what we are discussing.
The Minister went on to say that he thought that the British Gas Corporation was not fit to carry out these procedures.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Before the hon. Gentleman interrupts me, I admit that he then went on to praise the competence of the corporation. I would like to know how he substantiates the use of that word—

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I doubt whether I used the words "not fit". If I had done so, I would not have praised the corporation. What I think I said—and what I meant to say—was that I did not think it appropriate for the British Gas Corporation to carry out work in the oil area.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I believe that Hansard will record that the word "fit" was used, but I accept the Minister's explanation. I accept that—in circumstances that made many of us extremely uncomfortable—the Labour Government sold off shares in British Petroleum. However, that Government did not sell off control, and that made a great difference. I am not persuaded that there is a parallel between the actions of the Labour Government in relation to BP—not that I approved of them—and what is now proposed.
I should like to ask the Minister some specific questions. Is the Minister confident of the legality of his predecessor's instruction to the British Gas Corporation urging the corporation to sell Wytch Farm to the Dorset bidding group? The Minister will say that he answered that question in his reply.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The Minister nods his head, but it was not clear to me that he was certain of the legality of that instruction. Is he certain? The Minister is usually most cooperative.
When one turns up a stone, creepy-crawly things may come out. I was not persuaded that the answer to that question was yes. I believe that the Department of Energy is not quite sure of the legality of what is happening. I can only assume from the Minister's silence that the Department is not sure of its legal ground.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
At the risk of prolonging the debate, I must say that I thought that I had made the position clear. The British Gas Corporation had a clear understanding of the legal basis of that instruction.
I used my words with great care. I made the great distinction that my right hon. Friend's instruction was not legally binding. The British Gas Corporation chose to act on it, and may have some comments on it when we come to a conclusion. My words were clear, and I used them carefully and advisedly.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The Minister has not answered my equally careful question. Is he confident of the legality of the instruction of his predecessor to the British Gas Corporation urging it to sell Wytch farm? I suspect that the Minister's words are well chosen in the sense that they are ambiguous, and that the Department is not sure what a court ruling would be.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
That is right.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I had my suspicions when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) put the first question to the Attorney-General. I followed up his question three weeks later. We would not have put down questions to the Attorney-General if we had not wanted to find out about this subject.
351 The Department's lawyers are careful. I do not think that they are persuaded of the legality of what they are being asked to do. We must pursue this point, because it has emerged clearly from this debate that the Department's lawyers are not persuaded of the legality of what is happening. If they were, the Minister would give a confident answer at the Dispatch Box. It is now on record that he has not done so.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The hon. Gentleman is trying to twist what I said. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I claimed that the issue was legally binding. My right hon. Friend told the corporation at the time that it was the Government's view that it would be in the national interest and commercially viable for it to proceed with the negotiations. On that basis, the corporation undertook to do so. The Government have never claimed that their request carried legal force.
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Ministers often urge industries to follow a particular course of action in the national interest. It would be absurd if every discussion with an industry had to take the form of a legally binding direction. The Government gave an instruction, as they were entitled to do, on the basis of which the corporation acted, no doubt having taken advice. On this matter the Select Committee has asked the corporation questions. I have already stated clearly what I understand to be the corporation's view. No doubt it will make that view clear to the Select Committee as requested.

§ Mr. Dalyell
We have a difficulty here. I raised this point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who is a Queen's counsel and now the shadow Employment Secretary. I do not want to put words into my right hon. and learned Friend's mouth, but the gist of what he told me is that when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Energy officials occasionally raised the issue of instructions but never brought it to a head because it is a grey area. The obvious question that I must ask is, if the instructions are not legally binding, what happens if Sir Denis Rooke says that they are against the interests of the corporation? What happens if he objects to the break-up of that efficient organisation? I am not saying that he will say that—I cannot speak for him—but the question is reasonable.
If the Minister says that the instructions are not legally binding, is it not open to the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to ask why he should go ahead against his judgment after many years experience in the industry? We are talking of a man who has been in the gas industry for more than 40 years. He was a distinguished gas engineer who made his name during a crisis in the industry by fixing an accident in the east of London. In that way he came to the attention of the chiefs of the gas industry. He has extremely deep roots in his industry. If he says that, in the light of his experience, he judges that it is against the interests of the industry that he has served all his life and loves to go ahead and break up an efficient set-up, why should he be told, "You must do it", if it is not legally binding? I think that the Government are in great difficulty. I suspect that the Minister's answers will be read by the members of the Select Committee. I do not see where the power comes from to force the corporation to do things that are against its better judgment. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford nods in agreement and that the Minister is beginning to look a little uncomfortable.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The hon. Gentleman would have done better to listen to what I said.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I listened carefully.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman did listen, because I made it clear that my understanding is that the British Gas Corporation accepts that it would not be illegal for it to conclude a sale at a price that it regarded as below the economic value, as long as the corporation believed that that was a reasonable course of action in all the circumstances. I have therefore already answered the question that the hon. Gentleman is now trying to put.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The Minister has not answered the following question—wherein lies the pressure in the Department, other than saying that the chairman of a nationalised industry will be removed—thank heavens he has a contract—to force the chairman to do something against his better judgment?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I do not know whether he will do that.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Nor do I. I cannot speak for Sir Denis Rooke. However, having gone through many hours upstairs, some of us have something of a history in this matter. There are deep questions here about the power of the chairman of a nationalised industry. I see that a note is coming from the Government's advisers.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
It is about the time that I was going home.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It is not about the time to go home but about the substance of the issue. If the Minister wishes, I shall give way. Of course, it might be one of those inconvenient notes. If it is not, he should let us into the secret.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Read it out.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
I think that we should be told.

§ Mr. Dalyell
We are getting nearer the heart of the matter. Coming down to these jocularities from a sedentary position affects the fortune of the House. Ministers normally get away with a great deal. They have half-hour Adjournment debates in which an hon. Member speaks for 15 minutes and the Minister replies for 15 minutes and that is the end of the matter. As ill luck would have it, from the Department of Energy's point of view, it has worked out that we have probed a little deeper. As we probe, however, we turn over stones from under which merge all these creepy-crawly difficulties. The first is that the Government are not at all certain by what right they can tell Sir Denis Rooke to do things in his industry that are against his better judgment. In that case, they had better bring the instructions, as they are entitled to do under recognisd parliamentary procedures, to the Floor of the House. On round one, it is full points to the Opposition.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether it is his policy to ensure that nationalised industries for which he is responsible are to be privatised at full economic value—or whether he wishes any other criteria to be adopted—and if he will make a statement. I have read that question out as there is some difficulty with the Table Office in putting it down as I wish. It raises the criteria to 353 be adopted in the assessment of economic value. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford will agree that the Minister was somewhat vague about the methods of evaluation.
Is it sufficient to rely on the estimates by Wood Mackenzie? It is part of the myth of this place for those who are interested in the oil industry that Wood Mackenzie valuations have some mystical authority. The Government ought to have some different assessment, because Wood Mackenzie might not be wholly disinterested. I choose my words carefully because I do not like saying things in the House that I do not say outside. Wood Mackenzie is a commercial operation and I am not sure that a private firm in its position should be the sole arbiter of the value of publicly owned assets. What are the other criteria of valuation?
Are the Government prepared to accept the British Gas Corporation's valuation of Wytch farm? That is a civilised and precise question. Would the Minister like to intervene? Here we go again—he does not reply. Great difficulties arise because those who say, "We shall take over a public asset at a notional value", should be clear about the notional value on which the assets are assessed. Throughout many hours in Committee, it was not clear from the former Secretary of State for Energy, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he had a clear idea as to how these valuations were to be made.
Is there to be another Amersham International? Is that to be what happens? If there is a sell-off, and we are talking about criteria, to whom are the assets going to be offered? Is there to be any special offer for people employed by the BGC or the oil industry? Is there to be an effort to sell off shares to small shareholders as the Government thought proper when they sold Amersham International? I remember what happened in that case—shares went to big investors.
Therefore, I repeat the question: what are the criteria to be adopted? Could we have some statement on this issue?
There is a difficulty because the Minister has fairly recently come to the Department; in a sense, I am an old sweat, and old sweats have been through the mill upstairs and have had to listen, hour after hour, to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the present Minister of State, Home Office and know rather more about these matters than this Minister. I am not criticising him, because if one comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and is thrown into this problem one may not know much about it. The Minister should send a dispatch rider to find out from those who do know about the criteria. It is no good the Minister sitting there like a Buddha smiling away.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech. The Minister has already made a 32-minute speech, and we cannot have a cross-examination, although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his own speech.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I am not pretending to make a speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to conduct a serious interrogation, for which for once we have been given the opportunity on the Floor of the House, about what the 354 Minister has said. One of the difficulties of the House is that far too seldom do we get the opportunity to probe in some detail to what Ministers have been saying.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to probe, but this is a debate, and he must make his own speech and not expect a dialogue or cross-examination.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I may have every right to make my own speech, but I am not having much success where it matters—in the outside world. It has become clear that, beyond his brief, the Minister does not know much about this subject. It is outrageous that Governments presume to tell the great industries how to go about their businesses when the Ministers who give these directives know so pitifully little about the subject. We are disrupting an industry that on the Government's criteria is working. Nobody says that the BGC is conducting its business badly. However, when one asks questions, Ministers become more and more vacant.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that the crucial thing is that the Government give instructions when they have no statutory powers to do so, and that that has been conceded by the Minister? Is he aware of the conclusions of the Select Committee on Energy on this in February 1982? It said: It is clear from the evidence submitted to us that the Wytch Farm field is significant both in terms of the Corporation's activities and its contribution to United Kingdom oil reserves … In the context of our duty to scrutinise expenditure we think it right to stress the need to ensure the sale produces the maximum return for the nation. It is the responsibility of both the Corporation and the Department of Energy to ensure that this happens. By no stretch of any imagination can the terms under negotiation meet the above statement. If the corporation is taking instructions from the Government, who have no statutory powers to issue them, it is selling off the field outside its commercial judgment.

§ Mr. Dalyell
That is a correct assessment of the situation.
My interest in this matter is not recent; it goes back a long way, to the time when there were six pits in my constituency, where there is only one now. I had much to do with the then chairman of the coal board, Alf Robens, who was a friend of mine. He may have had faults, but he was a remarkable nationalised industry chairman. He expressed his contempt, as a former politician, for the constant changing of Ministers at important technical Ministries.
I am not blaming the Minister personally, but this is part of the trouble. This merry-go-round of Ministers that is part of the British system means that they come new to a Ministry, possibly knowing very little, despite all their responsibilities, about particular industries. It then becomes clear, when they are pressed, that they cannot defend these policies. That is forgiveable if the policy is the result of advice from the technical advisers, but when it is the result of dogma and not of technical necessity it is much less forgiveable.
What estimate has the Secretary of State for Energy made of the assets of Wytch farm, and what estimate has been made by the BGC? This is a simple question. Does he know the answer? That is the difficulty. The Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make speeches that profoundly affect an industry's future and is asked simple 355 questions about whether he knows the estimate, but he remains dumb. That is either because the Minister is fed up—he has known me for 20 years and knows that it is easier to shut me up by giving answers—or because he does not know the answer. I am not sure whether the Minister will get much advice from the Scottish Whip but if the Minister sent his Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Box he might get some answers.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Minister and House by saying that the British Gas Corporation's valuation is £450 million. The bid by the Dorset group is £160 million, £80 million of which is dependent on the Dorset group reaching a favourable profit figure.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It is a highly relevant question, which must be put in writing by the British Gas Corporation when its officials read this debate in the Official Report. It might seem as if we are all talking to ourselves but the Press Gallery is, rightly, rather more full than I have ever seen it at this time on Budget day. It is fuller because the press judges that there is considerable interest in the issue. It is important for its own sake. If we were discussing the Budget, and Back Benchers were making Budget speeches there would be no one in the Press Gallery.
Very important issues are at stake. By not answering the questions, the Minister has got into a position where I am much less friendly towards him than I was at the beginning of my speech. The Minister is debasing Parliament.
Ministers are there to answer questions and I can only assume, to make it crystal clear, that they have no estimate of the assets of Wytch farm and do not know what estimate has been made by the British Gas Corporation. Thus ignorance is piled upon ignorance.
I want to ask the Secretary of State only whether he has requested the British Gas Corporation to inform the Department of its estimates of the value of the corporation's assets at Wytch farm, and, if not, why not? Now the Minister is sulking, so I shall repeat the question, which is whether the Secretary of State has requested the British Gas Corporation to inform his Department of its estimates of the value of the corporation's assets at Wytch farm and, if not, why not? The question is clear enough. The fact that there is no answer speaks volumes.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is attending the debate. Ever since he has represented his south London constituency, he has been seriously interested in the interrogation and scrutiny of the House of Commons. He is also a fair-minded man and I shall give way if he wishes to interrupt me. When Ministers are struck dumb it usually means that they are uncomfortable about their policies.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The Minister shakes his head. I have asked him twice in a civil and agreeable way to answer my question. No answer is forthcoming. I can only assume that, once again, as happens with Governments, controversial policies are being put forward based on pretty empty knowledge, which brings the whole system into disrepute. That has happened before in the House. Some hon. Members have referred endlessly during debates to the constitutional measures in relation to Scotland and Wales. This very Minister was all in favour 356 of it to start with, until he discovered all the difficulties involved. Just as when he went blandly ahead in the 1970s and made many statements in Edinburgh and elsewhere on the subject of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, so he comes to the House to make a statement on a matter that he does not know very much about and expects us to ask questions, but resents us when we try to interrogate him. He had better get back to Ag and Fish, which he knows a lot about.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that what probably happened was that the Minister expected that he would have to reply to an effective speech—it obviously was—by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who initiated the Adjournment debate, and that that would be the end of it? The Minister has discovered, first, that there is another speaker and, secondly, that my hon. Friend is pressing him with questions to which he did not expect to have to reply. The basis of his thinking beforehand was clearly that this would be an ordinary Adjournment debate. Now it has not turned out quite in that way, because the previous business has been completed. Having been pressed time and again in the past half-hour by my hon. Friend to answer those questions, the Minister cannot do so. Surely that shows the weakness of the policy and, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, the need for much more detailed parliamentary scrutiny of this important issue.

§ Mr. Dalyell
This is disreputable behaviour by the Government Front Bench, but it is a tactic that we know so well. As soon as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford had made his careful and proper speech, what happened? Along came the Government Whip, in his most charming way—it was the the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson)—and asked me whether I would speak then. I said, "I have no interest in speaking now." I said, "Look" Donald, I do not speak until I have heard what is said. Perhaps the Minister will satisfy me with his answer. There might be no need for me to make a speech." I have never made a speech without a purpose. There is no point in speaking just for the sake of speaking.
I am concerned about what might happen to one of our great industries. In the past hour, the Minister has been found out. I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) is looking resentful. He hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a second Adjournment debate. I shall tell him how he can facilitate the second Adjournment debate—by interrupting his right hon. Friend the Minister, who is his parliamentary neighbour, and saying, "Look, mate, you had better answer some of these questions."

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This Adjournment debate is very wide, but we should discuss the subject rather than the procedures of the House.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I can see that you are becoming slightly irritated, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I ask for your patience, Sir. This is precisely the trouble. According to "Erskine May", Adjournment debates are based on scrutiny and interrogation of Ministers. If the hon. Member raising the subject has 15 minutes and the Minister has 15 minutes to 357 speak, one does not get far, but if, by parliamentary accident, the debate lasts a little longer, the inadequacies are revealed. What is now revealed is the fact that the Minister knows very little about the issues at stake.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am anxious only to help the House and to protect the procedures. That is all. The hon. Gentleman is getting dangerously near to tedious repetition, because he keeps saying that the Minister does not know his subject. All I am anxious to do is to help the House and the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Now we have it from the Chair that the Minister does not know his subject.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is very unfair. The hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say that. He should withdraw his comment.

§ Mr. Dalyell
If I have misinterpreted the thought in your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The hon. Gentleman had better apologise to me as well.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The Minister is now becoming irritated, saying that I had better apologise to him. In that case, he should answer the questions that I have asked him. It is no good becoming irritated and not answering the questions.
I want to ask the Secretary of State what he believes to be the statutory duty that the British Gas Corporation must fulfil in disposing of its assets at Wytch farm.

§ Mr. Winnick
That is an important question.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It is a very important question. The Minister did not answer the question about statutory duty. Therefore, I repeat my question. I ask the Secretary of State for Energy what he believes to be the statutory duty that the British Gas Corporation must fulfil in disposing of the assets that it has at Wytch farm. What is the Government's concept of the statutory duty? The record will again be blank because there is no answer.
The Minister is getting irritated, but so am I, because a number of my colleagues, among them my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, my right hon Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and I spent many hours sweating our guts out on behalf of the House in Committee to settle these matters. Not all the discussions took place on a party basis, because we took our jobs seriously. I take the matter seriously, but I do not think that the Minister does.

§ Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to ask the Minister what valid reason, other than doctrinaire politics, the Government have to demand that the British Gas Corporation should sell off the only onshore oilfield in Britain which is making a profit for British taxpayers.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to develop that point, because that is precisely what it comes down to. There is one reason and one reason only for following this course. That is sheer, uninformed, ill-conceived, badly-thoughtout, political dogma. That is what it is all about. There has 358 been no technical consideration whatsoever in this matter, and had there been a respectable technical case the matter would never have been put forward in this way.
My only outside job has been as a weekly columnist of New Scientist for 16 years. In that connection I talked to many people; not all were Labour, SDP or Liberal voters but some were Conservative voters. It is clear that those who know about the industry see no earthly reason for doing this. The Minister misled the House when he said that the matter was about the injection of private capital. What private capital is needed to do anything about Wytch farm? It is not necessary. That was a red herring, and people who bring in red herrings often do so because they have no better argument. Political dogma is causing the trouble. The matter is not about the gas industry but about getting assets in the short term for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Ah! Someone from the Opposition Front Bench has just arrived. That is excellent. It is about time that other hon. Members joined the debate, although I do not blame hon. Members for being absent because the debate came at an unexpected time.
I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) what is happening. We have been here for almost an hour. The Minister has no technical reason for bringing about the privatisation of Wytch farm and he cannot answer the simplest careful questions that I have put to him about the gas corporation. Some hon. Members spent many hours in Committee going over the matter, yet Ministers at the Department of Energy are acting in bad faith.
I am not getting angry to put it on, but because I am genuinely angry. Some hon. Members want to do their best for the country but find that there is a frivolity about the answers, or the lack of them.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
Dumb insolence.

§ Mr. Dalyell
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says, "Dumb insolence." It is dumb resentment. I know that the Minister is getting angry, but that is not good enough. It is all very well for him to get annoyed, but Ministers are present to answer questions. These are precise questions that were not answered in his speech. My anger is not faked but genuine.
The Minister said that the British Gas Corporation decided to act on instructions. That is a very egregious way of putting it, because members of the Select Committee and people who read the newspapers know that the corporation, left to its judgment, would not have acted on any such instructions. The corporation made it clear, did it not, from the beginning that it did not want to do this? My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North knows a great deal about the gas industry, and I am glad that he will take part in the debate, because he has often spoken about the industry. The fact is that the technical judgment of the corporation was totally different from what the Government now want it to do.
It is no good having a great session of trying to browbeat Sir Denis Rooke. He is a considerable figure and a formidable leader of a nationalised industry. Those of us who, in our parliamentary capacity, have met Sir Denis Rooke on several occasions know that he has the gas industry at heart. What do the Government mean when they say that the corporation decided to act on instructions?

§ Mr. Winnick
I do not wish to seem to be defending a Conservative Minister—that would be most unfortunate, and indeed unusual—but does not my hon. Friend agree that this stupid policy of privatisation and the whittling away of assets that belong to the community as a whole stems directly from the blindness and the dogma of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? My hon. Friend's fire should be directed at them. Would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy to be present to defend what my hon. Friend rightly described as an indefensible policy?
As I said earlier, I have no desire to defend the Minister, but he clearly lacks a detailed knowledge of such affairs. That is not in dispute. The real culprits are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have abandoned the national interest in pursuit of this senseless policy of privatising every vital asset that belongs to the community.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I must tell my hon. Friend in all seriousness that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unlike any previous Chancellor whom I have known. He is light years away politically from Selwyn Lloyd or Reggie Maudling, and I simply do not know what the shade of Ian Macleod would think about some of the actions of the Government.
When he was in Committee Room 11, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a political thug. I do not like political thugs, because they often bully Back-Bench Members. When pressed, the Chancellor is often wrong. He is not all that well briefed, and I do not think he is very clever either, but that is by the by.[Interruption.] I see some Conservative Members smiling with approval. They know exactly what I am getting at. I am not making too much of a political point here, because if the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer were the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), as he should be, that would be a different matter.
I came to this House at a time when a civilised man was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was concerned about the national interest. I refer to Reggie Maudling. He would have made absolutely sure that his junior Ministers answered debates and took part in arguments. The characteristic of this Government—it comes from the top—is that, when Ministers are pressed, they do not answer. I do not want to be led astray into making known my opinion of the present Prime Minister, but it was she who ordered the sinking of that ship, Belgrano.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are discussing oil. The hon. Gentleman must not stray too far.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North speaks, I would point out that the Minister said that the British Gas Corporation would find it not unattractive to proceed with. I do not know where he got that from, but I think that those were the words used. Ministers should be careful before they start putting words into the mouths of the British Gas Corporation. Will the Minister interrupt me and say that the corporation actually approves of what his Government are doing? Has he the face to say that? The fact is, as we all know perfectly well, and as those who have experience of the gas industry know perfectly well, that it does not in any way approve of what is happening.
360 The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims, in the words of the Minister, that the sale would be "commercially justifiable". I do not believe for one moment that the British Gas Corporation agrees that it is commercially justifiable. We would like to see the Government's evidence for suggesting that it is commercially justifiable. On what basis is it commercially justifiable? It is not commercially justifiable from the point of view of the United Kingdom Treasury, but commercially justifiable from the point of view of political dogma. That is what it is all about.
May I say, in conclusion, before my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and others speak, that the instructions are not given legally. They are not legally binding. I hope that, when senior officials of the gas corporation read this in the morning, they will feel it incumbent upon them to show this debate to their lawyers, to get a legal opinion, possibly counsel's opinion, and then to do their duty. If they do their duty, it will mean that Sir Denis Rooke and his colleagues will act in what they think is the commercial interests of the great industry that they represent.
The Minister talks about an auction process. Are we to have an auction like Amersham? Is that to be the basis—something of a rip-off? I do not normally indulge in the language of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but we must be very clear about who will benefit from this sell-off. I suspect that it will not be the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I do not think that many of those who get compensation from the events at Scott Lithgow will be able to invest in Wytch farm. We know that it will go to those in our society who are among the best off. Indeed, the tenor of the Budget was that we have gone back on unearned income to pre-Lloyd George. Those who depend on unearned income will benefit from this, not those who need it most.
It is all very well to say that oil and gas do not go together, and that somehow the British Gas Corporation is not the appropriate organisation to deal with oil, but that is technical rubbish. Oil and gas are found together, and it is spurious, technical balderdash and gobbledegook to say otherwise. We are in the infants class, that is the truth of the matter.
I must say to the Minister, therefore, that I am genuinely angry. My anger is not feigned. I think that the Minister's performance was disgraceful. I think that the policy is ill-conceived and, indeed, malicious and that it ought to be thoroughly examined by the Select Committee and by the senior officials of the BGC to whom I shall send the Hansard report of this debate, with a comment about the Minister's shame in not answering these questions.

§ Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on raising this debate at such an opportune time. I apologise that, due to other engagements, I was unable to be present to hear what was undoubtedly a learned and enlightening speech. I offer him my profound apologies. I apologise to the Minister for not having been present to hear what I understand was a disgraceful reply to my hon. Friend's superb speech.
I speak with a background of 30 years' experience in the gas industry, first in private hands, and subsequently in public ownership. I entered the gas industry in 1937 as 361 an apprentice. I spent just short of 30 years in it before I entered the House. I finished my period of service in middle management. I am immodest enough to say that, had it not been for the intervention of politics which brought me to this place, at this point in my life I would probably have been in a senior management position, so the gain of the House was clearly the loss of the British gas industry. Normally I am a modest man, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows.
Very early in my life in the gas industry, I learnt that senior management in the industry was comprised of people who were far from politically motivated. On the contrary, if anything, they were a-political. They were certainly not Labour-oriented people in the old days of the Newcastle and Gateshead gas company, which I remember with affection, although the industry was then in private hands. I make no secret of the fact that I looked forward to the day when the people of this country would own one of its major industries. In 1949, of course, that happened. I was more than delighted, as a Member of Parliament, when the British gas industry exploited onshore oil in this country for the first time. No doubt all hon. Members are aware that the gas industry has done well by the development of the exploitation of the North sea oilfields surrounding our shores.
However, we must ask why the private oil industry did not exploit the onshore resources, which would have been a much cheaper buy than the under-sea resources now being exploited in the North sea. It was left to the British Gas Corporation to lead the way in onshore oil development. I share the anger of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at the way in which doctrinaire politics and sheer dogma are forcing a highly efficient, publicly owned industry to sell a great asset—Wytch farm oilfield.
I shall repeat a question that I asked earlier. What reason could there be for demanding that British Gas should sell that worthwhile and profitable enterprise in Dorset? The answer is that there is no reason. I do not apologise for repeating my remarks, because there is no reason—apart from political dogma—why this Tory Government should demand that a publicly owned industry should sell a very profitable enterprise. If the Minister has the brass neck to suggest that there is any reason other than dogma he will be laughed out of court, as he well knows.
Reference has been made to Sir Denis Rooke. In the past 30 or 40 years, management in the gas industry has not changed much, and Sir Denis Rooke is a typical senior manager. He has one interest, and that is the gas industry. 362 But the interests of the British gas industry can only be those of Great Britain limited. We should all want to share that interest. However, it is clear that Conservative Members do not share it, because for the doctrinaire reasons of private profit the Wytch farm field represents for them a very lucrative proposition. They think that it should be not in public but in private hands. That is what this debate is all about.
I could debate the issue at length, as we did in Committee Room No. 11, but I shall not do so tonight. It is all on the record. The powerful case that we then made in that Committee has been echoed by my hon. Friends in the Committee on the Rates Bill and in other Committees. They are winning all the arguments, because the Government have no arguments left other than those of political dogma. The demands of this Government on Wytch farm bode very ill for the people of Great Britain. I spent 30 years in a gas industry that was privately and then publicly owned, and I know how I used to bristle when people suggested that we were a bunch of lazy layabouts working for a no-good industry. I started work there when I was 16, and developed a great pride in the industry.
That indeed is the attitude of the people who developed the industry and developed Wytch Farm oilfield. How do they feel about a Government which for no other reason than bitchiness, because it is a public enterprise making a profit, cannot bear to see it continue? The same can be said across the whole spectrum of public ownership.
I do not accept the concept which has been fostered by this Government that there is nothing good about public enterprise. I am not one of those people who think that the profit motive is evil. I do not think that at all. If industries such as gas and electricity, and if British Airways and Cable and Wireless, can make a profit for the people of Great Britain, that is a laudable thing. I see no evil in the profit motive.
If there has got to be monopoly, I do not see anything evil in monopoly in itself. The evil is when monopoly is in private hands, as we shall see after the passing of the Telecommunications Bill, when the monopoly at present in the hands of the state becomes a private monopoly. That is when it becomes evil. I see nothing wrong in a public monopoly like the British gas industry serving the British people faithfully. But it is being forced into a corner by this reactionary Tory Government as they sell off the assets of the British people.
That is exactly what Wytch farm oilfield is, and I share the anger of all my hon. Friends that the Government should be taking this type of action. They should hang their heads in shame and the British people should give them their reward at the ballot box next time.