§ 'From the date of enactment of this Act, the following restrictions on purchase and ownership shall apply to the company to which the property, rights and liability of the BAA are transferred, to that company's subsidiaries, and to any company formed by a principal council to carry on the business of a local authority airport undertaking or any activities incidental to or connected with carrying on that business:
- (a) no foreign company shall be eligible to purchase or own shares;
- (b) no airline operator shall be eligible to purchase or own shares;
- (c) no individual shareholder, organisation or company shall be eligible to purchase or own more than 2 per cent. of the total shares.'—[Mr. Snape.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take new clause 11—Airline share ownership by foreign governments or corporations—
§ '(1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the directors of the successor company shall be entitled to refuse to register the transfer of any shares in the successor company if
- (i) at any time within five years from the date upon which the successor company ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown the total number of shares held by any person in the successor company would exceed fifteen per cent. of the total issued share capital of the successor company which carried the right to vote at general meetings.
- (ii) the total number of such shares in the successor company held by airlines would exceed fifteen per cent. of the total issued share capital; or if the total number of such shares held by any one airline would exceed five per cent. of the total issued share capital.
- (iii) any shares would be held by a foreign government of any corporation controlled either directly or indirectly by a foreign government.
§ (2) For the purpose of this section "airline" shall mean an undertaking whose business includes the carriage by air of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and the holding company of any such airline if the business of the airline exceeds twenty per cent. of the turnover of the holding company in the financial year ending immediately prior to the date upon which the transfer of shares is presented for registration.
§ (3) The Directors shall be entitled to call upon any transferee of shares in the successor company to provide satisfactory proof that none of the limitations in subsection (1) would be exceeded before any share transfer is registered.'.
§ Mr. SnapeI should have thought that new clause 3, above any, would be guaranteed to strike a responsive chord among Conservative Members. As I am sure the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) would agree, new clause 3 is about a healthy form of patriotism. The Conservative party always seeks to wrap itself in the flag of patriotism, no matter what issue we are talking about, and here they have an opportunity to vote for a new clause that is designed to protect, and aimed specifically at protecting, Britain's interests. The Opposition usually speak for Britain but the Government only talk about it while they are busy selling out. But here we give them an opportunity to make up for all the evil things that they have done for Britain over the past seven years by standing up and defending British interests. New clause 3 seeks to restrict foreign ownership of our airports for commercial as well as strategic reasons.
The House will be aware that the London airport system in particular is in active competition with the European 181 airports of Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt, all of which have undertaken aggressive marketing campaigns and all of which are strongly supported by their Governments and national airlines. New clause 3 suggests that we in Britain should do the same, particularly for Heathrow. We should protect our interests in the future of our aviation industry. We invite the Conservative party to join us in going down that historic road.
Over the years, the BAA has been one of Britain's major foreign currency earners and has consistently reinvested its profits in new facilities that have brought widespread benefits to the British economy. We fear that if the new clause is not accepted and foreign operators decide to take a strategic stake in a privatised BAA, they could use that to stifle developments in London so as to enhance their own position. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West, who is amusing his colleagues—although there is nothing particularly funny about what we are discussing—by reading a brief, a copy of which he has received, as I have too, will, when he comes to speak on new clause 11 which is linked with new clause 3, make the same points. If he likes, he can use his own words. I hope that he will accept that I do not need to concentrate exclusively on reading a brief to make a point in the House and if the hon. Gentleman wants to use his own words in supporting our position on new clause 3, we shall be delighted. He can carry some of his hon. Friends with him, especially the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), whose dulcet tones frequently entertain the House. We do not doubt her patriotism for a moment. I know that she will be more than tempted to support this.
§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)Strident tones.
§ Mr. SnapeLet us not be too ungallant. Dulcet tones will do. We shall expect to see the hon. Lady in the Opposition Lobby defending British interests, particularly on the day of a vital by-election, although the Airports Bill is unlikely to be a major topic of conversation in Fulham. But then we do not need any further topics because the argument is about who will be in second place.
I hope that the House will recognise the strategic importance of the major international asset that we have at Heathrow and will prevent unfriendly Governments, or perhaps merely competitive Governments, from interfering in Britain's key economic decisions in the aviation world.
I recently visited the west country. The importance of Britain's international air links to the provinces, to Plymouth and to areas such as my own in the west midlands, should be apparent to all hon. Members. It is obviously an attraction for companies that wish to invest in Britain if, by merely making one change at Heathrow, they can then fly on to areas such as Manchester, Birmingham or Plymouth. The benefit of that interlinking is enormous for the regional economy.
But let me caution the Conservative party on new clause 3. If it opposes it it should reflect that it may well be endangering interlinking through Heathrow airport and may be further endangering the economy of Britain's provinces, particularly if it allows foreign operators to take shares in a privatised BAA and then to use that influence, 182 whether directly or indirectly, to reduce the number of slots at Heathrow which are available now to some of our smaller British airlines.
I know that one or two Conservative Members, for example the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) who assiduously represents the interests of one smaller airline, would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent their interests being damaged. I hope that the hon. Member for South Hams will agree with me. I will not be cynical and say that the hon. Gentleman is paid to agree with me; I hope that I will be able to persuade him to agree with me that he acceptance of new clause 3 will safeguard the internal links though Heathrow that the company that the hon. Gentleman represents, and the provinces in general, greatly value. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends who are concerned for the future of our air links to the provinces through Heathrow will support the new clause.
4.30 pm
The great argument—if one can dignify it by such a description—for privatisation is that it enables ordinary people to own great corporations and to share in their decision-making processes. I hope that I will be forgiven for some cynicism about that. Anyone who has watched the affairs of Westland in recent months will be aware that the view of the small shareholder is scarcely paramount. In new clause 3 we seek properly to write into legislation the theory that the Conservative party nominally embraces—the idea of a shareholding democracy.
We propose to limit individual shareholdings to a maximum of 2 per cent., and so to prevent some of the somewhat odious things that I have outlined coming to pass. A limit of 2 per cent. would genuinely lead to much greater participation by small shareholders in the affairs of a privatised BAA. Such a philosophy should endear it to Government Members, who still affect to believe in a shareholding democracy. That is what they say, but the reality is different. It is 40 years since a Member of a Labour Government stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Tories only profess to believe in wider shareholding but that what they really believe in, and implement, is monopoly capitalism. That will he the likely outcome of this Bill. That has been the outcome of other privatisation exercises embarked upon by the Government, and that is what new clause 3 seeks to prevent. Conservative Members now have an opportunity to vote for what they have long talked about—genuine participation by small shareholders.
My hon. Friends and I have repeatedly stated our view throughout the discussion of this Bill. We oppose it in principle. However, it is our duty to try to improve any Bill put before the House as much as we can. We believe that new clause 3 would improve the Bill in a way designed to appeal to Conservative consciences, if such a phrase is not a contradiction in terms. If Conservative Members have any conscience left, they should surely support new clause 3.
I hesitate to preach the virtues of Conservatism too loudly—they are hard to find—
§ Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)Another contradiction.
§ Mr. SnapeIndeed, but my hon. Friend should not be too upset about that. The art of politics for a minority party is to pitch its appeal in such a way that it may fall on 183 receptive ears. That is what I have tried to do, and I commend new clause 3 to Conservative Back Benchers as heartily as I commend it to my hon. Friends.
§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)I shall not follow precisely in the footsteps of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
I wish to refer to new clause 11, which is grouped with new clause 3. I tabled new clause 11 because I feared that new clause 3 would be ruled out of order on the ground that it seems to be contrary to the edicts in the treaty of Rome. My clause, too, if not exactly breaching the treaty, would come hard up against it. It would certainly be against the spirit of the treaty. However, the clauses give me an opportunity to articulate my concern about possible pressures if there were to be a large shareholding in BAA, and the effect that such a large shareholding could have on the control and management of the newly privatised body.
The figures in new clause 3 are very tightly drawn. The figures in new clause 11 are a little more generous, but they are not intended to be definitive and they are certainly open to adaptation. Before developing the debate on the possible mechanism for providing fair protection that I believe could be added to the Bill, we should record the reasons why we feel such measures are necessary.
I apologise to the hon. member for West Bromwich, East for mildly twitting him about his points on the dangers of foreign ownership. I was worried that he might take all the points that I wanted to make, leaving me with very little to say.
§ Mr. SnapeI left half the brief for the hon. Gentleman. I knew that otherwise he would have nothing to say on new clause 11.
§ Mr. PageAnd I really believed that I had persuaded the hon. Gentleman to chicken out. I did not realise that he was motivated more by generosity than by being ashamed of his own words.
I believe that airlines could form a group and have a major impact on shareholdings in the BAA. If four or five airlines each put in the equivalent of a jumbo jet, there would be a sizeable impact on the course of action that could be taken by the management. I do not say that they would act for sinister motives; they might have sensible commercial reasons. Nevertheless, there could be a knock-on effect on the fairness with which BAA was run. That could have an effect not only on new airlines wishing to come into the airport but on the consumer.
If I am worrying about a shadow, not a thing of substance, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will quickly tell me. My concern will then evaporate and new clause 11 will be allowed to lapse. However, if my right hon. Friend agrees that my anxiety is justified we must consider how to deal with it. I am not wedded to new clause 11 as the definitive solution to all our problems. It is a vehicle for discussion. Nevertheless, something should be done. I leave my right hon. Friend to consider whether we should use a new clause or merely amend the articles of association to provide some protection or limit. I shall listen with care to what he says about my genuine fears.
§ Mr. LitherlandI hope that the Government appreciate the common sense both of new clause 3 and of our observations about foreign control of airports. Surely the Government, and especially the Secretary of State, are 184 aware of the vulnerability of airports throughout the world in view of the recent spate of terrorism. Almost daily we see on our television screens horrific scenes of terrorist activities at airports. That is true not only of the large international airports but of the provincial airports.
It was a sad day for Mancunians when police at our airport were first allocated guns. Obviously, the consequences of terrorism have exercised the minds of those responsible for airport security. I do not know how the arming of our airport police will affect the tourist trade. I am sure that it must affect the decisions of tourists to come to this country on holiday.
The numerous hijackings and planting of bombs on planes or in airports prove that airports are very vulnerable. Airports are of great local and national strategic value. That begs the question whether any unfriendly Government should have a large investment in any of our airport authorities. The safety and security of our airports must take priority, which lends force to the argument that there should not be any foreign ownership of shares in BAA or any other British airport authority.
Foreign ownership could put jobs at risk, because contracts could be awarded to foreign rather than to British companies at the expense of British jobs. Airports are key economic assets, so we should not undertake any action that would be detrimental to their viability and, therefore, not in the interests of the nation.
It could also be detrimental if airline operators held shares. For example, larger operators could set terms that were unacceptable to the smaller airlines, and that could lead to a carve-up at airports—[Interruption.] I said carve-up, but I mean a fiddle. Conservative Members should be used to that.
We are opposed to foreign companies owning shares in British airport authorities. They, together with airport operators, should be excluded from doing so. New clause 3 states:
no individual shareholder, organisation or company shall be eligible to purchase or own more than 2 per cent. of the total shares.My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that that provision was common sense and met the criteria of Government dogma. I accept that we shall have no success in pleading with this Government to show reason. However, new clause 3 is a commonsense amendment in the British interest, and I hope that the House will accept it.
§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)I wish immediately to stress that, unlike the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—that unlikely national standard-bearer—I have no difficulty in speaking in favour of the Bill and the privatisation of the BAA.
§ Mr. SnapeWhat an overweight berk. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) is overweight, is he not? Perhaps he will tell the House why he considers me to be an unlikely standard-bearer. No doubt his military career was rather more glittering than mine, but I certainly left the services with an honourable discharge. What can he say about that?
§ Mr. CouchmanThe hon. Gentleman is very touchy today. I do not think that my diet has very much to do with 185 new clause 3. I stand absolutely four square behind the principle of the Bill, whereas the hon. Gentleman has declared his total opposition to it.
The Bill will enable the management of BAA plc to be free of the shackles of Whitehall and to bring about a prosperity to the airports that will—
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)In about a year's time, when BAA has been privatised, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in looking at the salaries of the chairman and directors. I will have a bet with him that if those salaries have not doubled, they will certainly have increased by 50 per cent.
§ Mr. CouchmanIf the salaries of the senior management and directors of BAA increase by that amount, I have no doubt that it will be because they have brought about a prosperity that currently is lacking. Their salaries would be linked to that.
I have no truck with new clause 3, which is clearly aimed at strangling any flotation of BAA. However, I am concerned about the possibility of foreign or airline control—a matter eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). I am wholly in favour of people's capitalism—the current jargon—but it should be British people's capitalism. Because of the various ramifications of the treaty of Rome—
§ Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee West)How many shares does the hon. Gentleman own?
§ Mr. CouchmanI have no shares at all.
We cannot legislate against the holding of shares in BAA by foreigners because that would be an infringement of the treaty of Rome. That is why new clause 3 is defective, as the Opposition must know by now. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will guarantee that control of BAA will remain in Britain, not just for a short period but for the indefinite future. I hope that he will assure us that steps will be taken, by the purchase or holding of a golden share, to ensure that control remains in Britain.
There is some parallel with other companies that have been privatised. I understand that 60 per cent. of the shareholding in Jaguar is now held in the United States. I do not know what that will mean for the control of Jaguar. I would not wish BAA to go down that path. British airports are public utilities and cannot really be compared with a manufacturing company such as Jaguar. The control of public utilities should remain within Britain for the indefinite future. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give the House that assurance.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)After listening to some hon. Members, one would think that the Russian Aeroflot airline could gain control of Heathrow and turn it into a MIG base.
§ Mr. KingI suppose that is a possibility, but only if the BAA, the Government and everyone else stand idly by and allow it to happen.
A privatised British airport system with a monopoly in the London area must carefully scrutinise those seeking ownership of the system. Unlike other privatised concerns, it does not have free-standing competitors—at least, not 186 in the United Kingdom, although competition exists in the airports of Europe. For example, Heathrow and Gatwick face competition from Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.
In theory, many of those airport organisations, through other airlines, could gain access to ownership of the British Airports Authority and use that ownership to ensure that certain policies which were beneficial to them were carried out. I do not, however, think that this would occur without the British Airports Authority knowing about it and taking steps to prevent it.
It could be done by using this clause, but an extraordinary amount of policing would he required to monitor 2 per cent. shareholdings, and the directors of the British Airports Authority would spend almost every moment of their working day trying to find out who owned the authority, leaving them very little time to run the organisation, in order to comply with the new clause.
§ Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)I pass through the airports of this country quite frequently and rarely find a servant of the authority who is Anglo-Saxon, or even a Scot. They all speak broken English. If the present monopoly is able to employ almost exclusively those who are not of British extraction, what is the problem?
§ Mr. KingI thank my hon. and leaned Friend for that contribution. I would prefer to leave the question unanswered, except to say that I have noticed that the management side could perhaps benefit from some contribution from the ethnic minorities, just to bring some balance to the organisation. What my hon. and learned Friend says is perfectly true. The ethnic minorities have a very strong work presence—certainly at Heathrow. I am not so sure whether that matters in Scotland. British airports are major employers and are to be congratulated on that. We look forward to the creation of many more jobs for all sections of the community.
To go back to what I was saying, to control the ownership of our airports and to provide safeguards, I should like to see provisions in the articles of association of the company similar to those for British Aerospace, British Telecom and Britoil, and such as will exist for British Gas. The Minister must make it clear when he replies to this part of the debate what type of restrictions and wording, if any, the Government would like to see in the articles of association to ensure that the British Airports Authority remains largely in the ownership of the British people.
§ Mr. Stephen RossThe hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) mentioned at the end of his speech what we want to hear from the Minister. We want to know what provision will be made for workers' share opportunities in the privatisation of the British Airports Authority, if this has to go through. I totally disagree with privatisation, but if it has to happen at least let the workers have a share in it. Will there be an offer similar to that made to those who work for British Telecom—because that is what we want to hear—and will there be a golden share? The point that was raised was valid. The arguments made in the debate about the acceptability of the clause are quite valid too. The country will want to have assurances about these matters.
I realise that the Bill still has some way to go through the other place, and it may be that Government have not 187 entirely made up their mind. Nevertheless, we are entitled to know here and now what the Government intend to do when they float the British Airports Authority.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)When he replies to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister must tell us what the effect of these two new clauses would be. If either or both were accepted, how would it affect a privatised British Airports Authority? How would they affect a privatised authority if it was considering investing in airports in other parts of the world? I imagine that after it is privatised it might develop the kind of expertise that would be marketable in other parts of the world. That being so, it might well wish to invest not only its skill but its funds, so as to increase the profitability of its organisation—something of which we would all approve.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ancram)We have had an interesting debate on what appeared at first sight to be a fairly simple and straightforward new clause. We have learnt about the travelling habits of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) and about the military distinction of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). We are in a sense facing two new clauses which are similar in intent but distinguishable in the way in which they try to achieve their purpose.
New clause 3 aims to restrict the ownership of shares in the British Airports Authority's successor company, its subsidiaries established as part of the restructuring arrangements in clause 1 of the Bill, or in airport companies formed by local authorities. New clause 11 places somewhat more limited restrictions on shareholding in the BAA's successor company.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, rather to the surprise of his supporters—as he would have seen had he been able to look over his shoulder—put forward patriotism as the reason for this new clause. Members on the Government Benches always welcome any indication of patriotism from members of the Opposition.
§ Mr. Frank CookI seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be a historical reference, but is it not true to say that it has always been the working classes of this country that have risen promptly to defend the flag, and not members of the party in government?
§ Mr. AncramI am tempted to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they protest too much. I was merely complimenting the hon. Member on putting forward the argument of patriotism. I thought that the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) was more realistic. He dealt with the problems that might arise rather than drawing the dark and dramatic picture with which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East tried to justify his new clause.
I do not consider that the significant restrictions on the ownership of shares in airport companies, proposed by both new clauses in different ways, are necessary, because the Bill itself provides a series of safeguards against undesirable action taken by an airport company, control of which has been acquired by a particular shareholder or class of shareholder. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) in a sense, suggested that these controls were available and that we should look at them again. I would like to go through 188 some of them now. I do not apologise to the House for taking time to do so because it is important that hon. Members are aware of the existing safeguards.
For instance, the Civil Aviation Authority, as airport regulator, has powers under clause 38 of the Bill to prevent any trading practice or pricing policy which unreasonably discriminates against any class of user, or particular users, of an airport, or which unfairly exploits the airport's bargaining position—for instance, in setting the general level of charges. These powers could be used if an airline gained a degree of control over an airport company and sought to charge its own aircraft at more favourable rates than those of competing airlines, for instance, or unreasonably discriminated over the provision of services and facilities to airlines using the airport.
The CAA also has powers to prevent predatory pricing. At the designated airports, which will comprise the BAA's three London airports and Manchester, the CAA will be required to set limits on airport charges. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission will review all aspects of the airport business every five years. In addition, there are safeguards to prevent discrimination over access to an airport. Airports which hold public use licences issued by the CAA must not allow discrimination over access. Clause 32 of the Bill ensures that the CAA can require an airport to hold a public use licence. This power is further reinforced by clause 27, which ensures that the Secretary of State can direct an airport to comply with our international obligations, including those in respect of non-discrimination over access to airports.
Safety will continue to be regulated by the CAA through the aerodrome licensing system. The Department of Transport will continue to regulate security, issuing directions to airports where necessary, under the Aviation Security Act 1982. In the event of war or emergency, the Government have wide-ranging powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It is, therefore, very difficult to see what benefit could be gained by an individual or company seeking to make a substantial investment in an airport company, other than the normal commercial benefit of investment in a profitable venture.
5 pm
There are other safeguards as well. There are the safeguards of the Fair Trading Act 1973, ensuring that there can be a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if a shareholder proposes to acquire enough shares to be in a position materially to influence policy or to gain effective control. If the proposed acquisition is judged by the MMC as being against the public interest—several of my hon. Friends raised hypotheses about this—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has powers to prevent it. This provides yet a further safeguard against the purchase of shares for use in a manner which is detrimental to the interests of airports or their users.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and others of my hon. Friends foresaw serious practical problems about some of the restrictions proposed by both new clauses. The proposed restriction on foreign ownership would contravene our obligations under the treaty of Rome and would therefore seem to be ruled out.
Furthermore, a restriction on the size of any shareholding to 2 per cent. of the shares, as proposed by new clause 3, would be absurdly low. It could prevent the establishment of a market in the shares and would probably 189 contravene the European Community admissions directive, applied by the Stock Exchange (Listing) Regulations 1984, which requires shares to be "freely negotiable". Any such general restrictions on the size of shareholdings, including the 15 per cent. restriction proposed in new clause 11, would also have the serious disadvantage of making the companies "bid-proof", removing a clear incentive for efficiency by removing any threat of takeover. Therefore, it appears that the protection which my hon. Friends want is in place in any event either within the Bill or within existing legislation. Indeed, the new clauses themselves would contravene certain of our obligations within the European Community.
I have listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friends and in particular to the concern that it might just be possible for an airline controlling an airport to disadvantage other airlines in some subtle way, perhaps by pursuing investment policies which were not in the broader interests of United Kingdom aviation. So, while I consider that it would be a belt and braces approach, we are prepared to examine an appropriate restriction on shareholdings in BAA's successor company to meet the concern. If, on examination, we decide that this is warranted, we do not propose to write it into the Bill. Any such restriction would be written into the articles of association of the BAA's successor company, an effective mechanism which has been used in other privatisations and which is understood and accepted by investors.
If we go by that route, something which we wish to consider on examination, it would probably involve a golden share, about which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked. In those circumstances we would not want to give local authority airports less freedom than the BAA to introduce such restrictions, if they were considered desirable. We shall examine clause 24 and, if necessary after consideration, we shall bring forward an amendment in another place.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will withdraw their new clauses.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Does the hon. Gentleman wish to have the leave of the House to speak again?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerDoes the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
§ Mr. SnapeWhat the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has just said is of some significance in the debate. However, I wish that he had been more clear about the Government's intentions. We have obviously worried the hon. Gentleman. I cannot claim any personal credit for the expression of worry that has flitted across the Minister's face, but the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House during the short debate has caused some worry within the ministerial ranks.
So that we may decide whether that concern is sufficient, let us examine the proposals that have been put forward and the hon. Gentleman's reactions to them. It is 190 a strange Conservative party which says, "We cannot do anything to defend British interests because it might be contrary to the treaty of Rome." I do not know whether the new clause in my name and the names of my hon. Friends is contrary to the treaty of Rome, but, to be honest, I do not much care whether it is. I make no apology for that.
If I am, in the words of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), an unlikely standard bearer, in many ways he is an unlikely Tory. [Interruption.] I merely ask where he gets his patriotism from. When I looked at his track record, I noticed that he joined the family company in 1970. I congratulate him on being an achiever, if for no other reason than that within a very short time he became chairman and then a director of the company, so he is an unlikely standard bearer for British interests when we compare his track record with those of my hon. Friends. We make no apology for defending the interests of British aviation.
§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)Cheap. That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SnapeThe hon. Lady has just joined us. It would be out of character for her to keep her mouth shut for longer than 30 seconds. The hon. Lady said, "Cheap." Whether she was imitating a budgerigar or participating in the debate I shall leave her to judge, but I do not think it is cheap to defend the interests of the last prosperous industry in Britain or to defend the patriotism of my hon. Friends. We get sick of being lectured on patriotism by a party that is anxious to parcel up and sell to anyone anywhere in the world any profitable sector of British industry. If it is patriotism to resist such conduct by the worst Government that this country has ever seen, we plead guilty to being patriots and are proud to do so.
We want to know more than the Under-Secretary of State has implied. He said that the Government might retain a golden share in a privatised BAA because of the likely impact of foreign ownership on the policies to be pursued by a particular BAA airport. The hon. Gentleman will know that, despite all the safeguards he has outlined, references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission through the Office of Fair Trading are infrequent and difficult to come by. We are concerned that damage might be done to British aviation interests while the question whether a practice was fair was being considered.
A foreign airline or a large company which has a major or significant shareholding in a privatised BAA will not advertise the fact that it is seeking to influence the policy to be followed by a privatised airport. It will be done much more subtly, as the Conservative party knows. Regretfully, I cannot accept the Minister's assurances. He will have to come up with something more definite.
With regard to shareholding, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) said that he was not too bothered about upholding the figure of 15 per cent. referred to in his amendment. Again, to show how anxious we are to reach agreement, we shall not hold him to the 2 per cent. either. We feel that a limit must be laid down to the number of shares that can be held.
To say that the imposition of such a limit would reduce efficiency because it would prevent a future takeover is a laughable interpretation, and if we are talking about laughable interpretations, we have just the man for the job sitting on the Front Bench, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Transport. It is a 191 doctrine that I have never heard expounded by any chairman of any major company—that a firm is more efficient because it fears a takeover. We are normally told how efficient companies have been, regardless of attempts by their competitors to gobble them up. So we feel that a limitation on shareholding is necessary.
Mention was made during the debate of British Telecom. There is an example for all of us, even Conservative Members, to learn from. There are more British Telecom shareholders in Tokyo than there are in West Bromwich or, for that matter, in Birmingham, Northfield. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is not a shareholder, and I hope he will take it from me that more British Telecom shares are held in Tokyo than are held in his own constituency. Is that the sort of patriotism that the hon. Member for Gillingham professes to defend?
We insist on a shareholding limit, whatever it is—not necessarily the 2 per cent., or the 15 per cent. which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West indicated, but certainly some limitation, if only to protect the future policies of these privatised airports and to defend the future interests of British aviation.
For those reasons alone, I hope that despite, shall I say, the arguments that I have marshalled the Conservative party will for once stop talking about patriotism and vote for it.
§ Mr. Richard Pagerose—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerDoes the hon. Member have the leave of the House to speak again?
§ Mr. PageWith the leave of the House, I shall take only a few minutes to respond, with a slight contrast in style, to the Minister's speech. I thank him for listening to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House. I am glad that he is to look at the matter again. I believe that the whole House will be glad to know that this issue will be given a second going over and that, if necessary, the golden share will be introduced.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 301.
| Division No. 125] | |
| [5.12 pm | |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Campbell, Ian |
| Alton, David | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Canavan, Dennis |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) |
| Ashton, Joe | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Cartwright, John |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Clarke, Thomas |
| Barnett, Guy | Clay, Robert |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Clelland, David Gordon |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cook, Frank (Stockton North) |
| Blair, Anthony | Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) |
| Boyes, Roland | Corbett, Robin |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Craigen, J. M. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Cunningham, Dr John |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) | Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Deakins, Eric |
| Buchan, Norman | Dewar, Donald |
| Caborn, Richard | Dixon, Donald |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. | Dormand, Jack |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Douglas, Dick |
| Dubs, Alfred | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Maxton, John |
| Eastham, Ken | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) | Meacher, Michael |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Michie, William |
| Ewing, Harry | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Fatchett, Derek | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Nellist, David |
| Fisher, Mark | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Flannery, Martin | Park, George |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Parry, Robert |
| Forrester, John | Patchett, Terry |
| Foster, Derek | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Foulkes, George | Pendry, Tom |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Penhaligon, David |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Pike, Peter |
| George, Bruce | Prescott, John |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Radice, Giles |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Randall, Stuart |
| Golding, John | Redmond, Martin |
| Gould, Bryan | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central) | Robertson, George |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Rooker, J. W. |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Home Robertson, John | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Howells, Geraint | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham) | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Skinner, Dennis |
| John, Brynmor | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E) |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Snape, Peter |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Stott, Roger |
| Kennedy, Charles | Strang, Gavin |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Straw, Jack |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Lambie, David | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Lamond, James | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Tinn, James |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Torney, Tom |
| Litherland, Robert | Wainwright, R. |
| Livsey, Richard | Wallace, James |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Loyden, Edward | Wareing, Robert |
| McCartney, Hugh | Weetch, Ken |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | White, James |
| McKelvey, William | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| McNamara, Kevin | Wilson, Gordon |
| McTaggart, Robert | Winnick, David |
| McWilliam, John | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Madden, Max | |
| Marek, Dr John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Martin, Michael | Mr. Ray Powell. |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Bendall, Vivian |
| Alexander, Richard | Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Benyon, William |
| Amess, David | Best, Keith |
| Ancram, Michael | Bevan, David Gilroy |
| Arnold, Tom | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
| Ashby, David | Biggs-Davison, Sir John |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Bonsor, Sir Nicholas |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Bottomley, Mrs Virginia |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
| Baldry, Tony | Brinton, Tim |
| Batiste, Spencer | Brittan, Rt Hon Leon |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Bellingham, Henry | Browne, John |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hawksley, Warren |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Hayes, J. |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney |
| Budgen, Nick | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Heddle, John |
| Burt, Alistair | Henderson, Barry |
| Butcher, John | Hickmet, Richard |
| Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam | Hicks, Robert |
| Butterfill, John | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Hill, James |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hind, Kenneth |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Cash, William | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Holt, Richard |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Chapman, Sydney | Howard, Michael |
| Chope, Christopher | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Churchill, W. S. | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hunter, Andrew |
| Colvin, Michael | Irving, Charles |
| Conway, Derek | Jackson, Robert |
| Coombs, Simon | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Cope, John | Jessel, Toby |
| Couchman, James | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Jones, Robert (Herts W) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Dicks, Terry | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Dover, Den | Knight, Greg (Derby N) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Dunn, Robert | Knowles, Michael |
| Durant, Tony | Knox, David |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lamont, Norman |
| Eggar, Tim | Lang, Ian |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Latham, Michael |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Fallon, Michael | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Farr, Sir John | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Favell, Anthony | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Lightbown, David |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Lilley, Peter |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Forth, Eric | Lord, Michael |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Luce, Rt Hon Richard |
| Fox, Marcus | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Franks, Cecil | McCrindle, Robert |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Freeman, Roger | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Fry, Peter | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Galley, Roy | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
| Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) | Madel, David |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Major, John |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Malins, Humfrey |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Malone, Gerald |
| Gow, Ian | Maples, John |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Marland, Paul |
| Grant, Sir Anthony | Marlow, Antony |
| Greenway, Harry | Mates, Michael |
| Gregory, Conal | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Grist, Ian | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Ground, Patrick | Mellor, David |
| Grylls, Michael | Merchant, Piers |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John S | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Mitchell, David (Hants NW) |
| Hannam, John | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Harris, David | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Steen, Anthony |
| Mudd, David | Stern, Michael |
| Neale, Gerrard | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Neubert, Michael | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N) |
| Norris, Steven | Stokes, John |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Sumberg, David |
| Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Ottaway, Richard | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Parris, Matthew | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Pawsey, James | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Pollock, Alexander | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Powley, John | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Price, Sir David | Thurnham, Peter |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Raffan, Keith | Trippier, David |
| Rathbone, Tim | Trotter, Neville |
| Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Renton, Tim | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Viggers, Peter |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Waddington, David |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Robinson, Mark (N'port W) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Walden, George |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Rowe, Andrew | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Walters, Dennis |
| Ryder, Richard | Ward, John |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Warren, Kenneth |
| Scott, Nicholas | Watts, John |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Wheeler, John |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Whitfield, John |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Whitney, Raymond |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Shersby, Michael | Wilkinson, John |
| Silvester, Fred | Wolfson, Mark |
| Sims, Roger | Wood, Timothy |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Woodcock, Michael |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Yeo, Tim |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Speed, Keith | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Spencer, Derek | |
| Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Mr. Carol Mather and |
| Squire, Robin | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
| Stanbrook, Ivor |
§ Question accordingly negatived.