§ Mr. SpeakerStatement—Mr. Morrison.
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not usually the case that statements on a Friday must be exceptional, urgent, or agreed through the usual channels? It is not true that the making of a statement today has not been agreed through the usual channels? The statement is not urgent and it does not require any exceptional treatment.
Britoil is a Scottish company and the bulk of the people employed by it work in Scotland. Most people affected by the statement are Scottish. To have such a statement on a Friday in July makes it especially difficult for Scottish Members of Parliament. When the last statement on Britoil was made, no fewer than 15 Scottish Members of Parliament, of all parties, raised points. They are now being deprived of that opportunity by this shifty means of making a statement today.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that I can deal with this matter. The Standing Order provides the opportunity for statements to be made at 11 o'clock. I am not informed of the contents and I have no idea whether they are urgent. However, it is perfectly in order for a statement to be made at this time on a Friday.
In relation to what was said by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I can say from experience that I very much hope that the business of the House can, in general, be arranged through the usual channels. We proceed in good order if there is the consent of both sides of the House.
§ Mr. Alan WilliamsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. As it is virtually the last week before the recess, there will be no opportunity to debate the matter before October unless we can do so next week. Is it not true that virtually the only opportunity for debate next week would be the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill? Is it not also true that, because this statement is being made without notice, it is now too late for any hon. Member to table this matter for debate under the Consolidated Fund procedure?
§ Mr. SpeakerOf course, in addition to the Consolidated Fund—the ballot for which has already been held—there is a three-hour debate on the summer Adjournment motion on Monday. Furthermore, there is still time for the right hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, to apply for a debate on the Adjournment on the last Thursday.
§ Mr. AllenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I very much hope that you have a long and relaxing recess. During that time, would you consider the way in which the Government, not only on this occasion, but on a number of occasions during recent weeks—this is becoming more and more evident to hon. Members on both sides—have sought to use the opportunity to gain television coverage to manipulate and extend the boundaries that hitherto were agreed by all sides? Would you consider how Parliament could recapture some of its lost time?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere was an interesting debate last night on the televising of the House and since it is now agreed that the House will continue to be televised. I can now come clean and say that I think that it has been a considerable success. However it is not for me to speculate on how time is used when the cameras are on. Our Standing Orders allow the opportunity for statements to be made on a Friday, and Friday is of course, a working day.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week and the week before, there were discussions in the House, in which you were involved, about the way in which the House was being used, without the usual negotiations between the usual channels. You made a statement to the effect that the practice of using the House of Commons in that way was not good enough. The Government do not listen to your words. They think, "It doesn't matter now; a week or two has passed so we will do it again."
There comes a time when you, Mr. Speaker, must use some authority. Unfortunately, your recent words were not good enough, because the Government have decided to treat them with contempt. At some time, you must make it abundantly clear to the Government—especially as they are now using the opportunity of television—that this sort of business must stop. Never mind about Back Benchers, never mind about the Opposition—you must make that clear to the Government. You know that there are occasions when some hon. Members are present but others are not.
It is clear that those hon. Members whose constituencies are 300 or 400 miles away and who have an interest in this matter, face more difficulties than someone like me, whose constituency is only 150 miles away. I have always recognised the fact that some hon. Members, who are up in the Shetlands and elsewhere—[Laughter.]
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)The Outer Hebrides.
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, and the Outer Hebrides. Some of our people actually live in Scotland. I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, make it clear to the Leader of the House, no less, that this sort of business must stop, and follow that with a report to the House on Monday. The Government are railroading through the business and treating the Opposition, Back Benchers and yourself with contempt.
§ Mr. SpeakerNot at all. The hon. Gentleman is here regularly on a Friday and he well knows that it is a full working day in the House of Commons. However, undoubtedly it would have been for the convenience of hon. Members with Scottish constituencies if they had known that the statement was to be made this morning.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that I can take any more points of order. What can I say about it?
§ Mr. SpearingI shall explain that, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not true that, habitually, Ministers making statements, of whatever importance and with whatever agreement, preface their remarks with the words, "With permission"? Is it not also true that those words are nothing but a courtesy and that, in fact, they are empty of meaning? When I investigated, I discovered that not even 1305 you, Mr. Speaker, or the House has to give permission. Therefore, I suggest that it is inappropriate that it be sought.
I am a London Member, and I resent my Scottish colleagues being treated in this way. Should we not refer the question of statements to the Select Committee on Procedure? For the time being at least, should those words that are empty of meaning be not uttered by the Minister? He does not have the permission of the Opposition.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer that matter to the Procedure Committee, he should certainly do so.
§ 11.7 am
§ The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison)With permission, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. In the light of what has been said, I am not sure that that is helpful.
§ Mr. MorrisonI should like to make a statement on the Britoil special share. A number of substantial benefits to Scotland and to the development of the United Kingdom's oil and gas resources have been secured as a result of BP's compliance with the assurances that it gave to the Government when it acquired Britoil in 1988.
The reserves of Britoil's producing fields have been upgraded by 67 million barrels, a 24.5 per cent. increase, and well over the 5 per cent. that was promised. The drilling rate on Britoil acreage increased significantly in 1988, and again in 1989, and this year is expected to be approximately double the 1988 level. British Petroleum has confirmed to me that its plans for drilling in 1990 are designed to secure that 87 wells are drilled on acreage held by BP or Britoil at the time of the acquisition, and that it is confident that £310 million will be spent. A further £30 million is being spent on exploration-related research and development.
British Petroleum is pressing ahead with the development of a number of major fields, including Miller and Amethyst, and has made detailed proposals for the development of Bruce. In Scotland, Glasgow has now been established as the head office for BP's upstream business throughout the whole of Europe. This year alone, BP Exploration will be spending approximately £1 billion, more than half its worldwide spending, on activities run mainly out of Scotland.
The numbers employed by BP Exploration in Glasgow and Aberdeen have risen significantly, mainly as a result of the enhancement of Glasgow's role. In addition, the expansion of Kinneil is expected to generate an extra 2,500 jobs and the Bruce project 500 jobs—all of them in Scotland. BP's commitment to Scotland has been underlined by its establishment of a Scottish advisory board chaired by the chairman of the BP group.
When BP gave the assurances, the Government undertook that after a period they would review, in the light of the way that they had operated, when the special rights preference share in Britoil should be redeemed.
BP has fully implemented the assurances, which have now been working satisfactorily for some time. They have also been the subject of an inquiry by the Select Committee on Energy.
1306 My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are satisfied that BP has lived up to its word and that the Government's objectives in obtaining assurances have been met. I am therefore taking immediate steps to arrange for the special share to be redeemed.
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)As there were at least 10 references to Scotland in that statement, the protest by my hon. Friends and myself was entirely justified.
The statement is the last nail in the coffin of Britoil, which the Government privatised as an independent oil company and which used to be Scotland's largest publicly quoted company. When Britoil was originally put up for sale, the then Minister of State for Scotland, Mr. Hamish Gray, now Lord Gray, said that the arrangements that the Government had arrived at would contain effective safeguards for Britoil's independence. The golden share was a vital part of those arrangements. In 1988, Britoil was bought up by BP. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said:
The existence of the special share has enabled the Government to secure from BP these wide-ranging, valuable public assurances."—[Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 150.]Those assurances covered the amount of exploration and development work to be undertaken and the level of employment in Scotland to be provided by both companies, the sale of assets of former Britoil property, and the structure of the board.The Minister told the House today that those assurances have been kept, but that is simply not true, He said:
they have also been the subject of an inquiry by the Select Committee on Energy.They have, but the Minister forgot to mention that the Select Committee recommended that the golden share should be retained for the time being. The Committee also said that it was not convinced that BP had acted in the spirit of the assurances given about employment in Scotland. It is simply not true that the assurances have been kept.The Minister's carefully worded statement, obviously drafted by a first-rate Sir Humphrey, said:
British Petroleum has confirmed to me that its plans for drilling in 1990 are designed to secure that 87 wells are drilled on acreage held by BP or Britoil at the time of the acquisition?".Some of that acreage is no longer held by BP or Britoil but has been disposed of. How can the Minister accept an assurance from BP that it has kept its promise when the company is counting in assets that it no longer owns? That is a preposterous concept.Will the Minister confirm that if the acreage sold off is excluded from the calculations, the expenditure commitment on exploration and on wells drilled has not been kept? Will he answer that specific question?
Will the Minister confirm also that BP's plans for work next year will mean that its activities will be cut by half., and that the Government's surrender of the golden share will allow the company to dispose of Britoil assets exactly as it wishes and to invest the proceeds abroad, rather than in North sea activities? Will the Minister confirm that both may happen if he gets rid of the golden share?
What are the tax implications of today's statement? Is it not true that BP will be able to shift assets around from 1307 one company in the group to another? BP itself calculates that this development will help to reduce its tax liability by between £75 million and £100 million this year. Is that counted in the current public expenditure round, or is it just another of the privatisation sweeteners that the Prime Minister seems happy to hand out?
The golden share existed to enforce the assurances that BP gave. They were given partly to the Scottish people, but they have not been honoured. Surrending the golden share will give BP an entirely free hand to do what it likes with Britoil's assets and staff. Frankly, for the Minister to give up the golden share at this moment is like throwing in the towel before he has even climbed into the ring. There should be much more resistance to the action that BP is covertly trying to take.
If the Minister does not know what BP is up to, he should resign for being incompetent. If he does know, he should resign for collaborating with it. His announcement will harm the ecnonomy, our efforts in the North sea, and the people of Scotland. It has one saving grace—it will also harm the Government.
§ Mr. MorrisonThe hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and I are at variance about the reason why the golden share existed in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman examines the original wording on that subject, I think that he would find it impossible to use the share in the way that he wants, for intervening in the running of BP or Britoil, or both. I do not believe that it is right to intervene in any company. The North sea has prospered substantially since 1979, for the simple reason that we have allowed companies to get on with running their own businesses, rather than interfering.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that my statement was
the last nail in the coffin of Britoil",but that is utter rubbish. As my statement pointed out, there are now 500 more jobs than would have been the case in 1988. The hon. Gentleman also talked, perfectly fairly, about the acreage—
§ Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)My hon. Friend can talk about whatever he wants.
§ Mr. MorrisonI agree with the hon. Lady.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the acreage that is now not owned or operated by BP. I can give him precise figures. Of the 87 wells to which I referred, 39 will be operated by BP, 28 will be partner-operated, 10 will be farm-outs, and 10 will be Oryx. The sale of some Britoil assets was carefully examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and myself several months ago.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will be pleased to know that, where a well is not to be operated by BP, we have received a categorical assurance that the wells will be drilled—so that assurance has been honoured.
The hon. Gentleman referred to BP's tax situation. I have not paid any attention—on reflection, nor should I—to that aspect, because it is a matter for BP and the Inland Revenue. I considered carefully the letter that Sir Peter Walters, the then chairman of BP, wrote to Sir Peter Middleton, permanent secretary to the Treasury, to determine whether the company's assurances have been 1308 honoured. That was a long and detailed letter, and it was a tough negotiation at the time, and I assure the House that they have all been carried out.
§ Mr. John Hannam (Exeter)Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the targets set for the company two years ago were extremely tough and that all the Government's expectations have been exceeded? Is it not true that, in general, the North sea has seen tremendous success in its exploration and development over recent years?
§ Mr. MorrisonI can confirm that the targets set were tough. For example, in 1988 52 wells were drilled between BP and Britoil and that figure is now just under 90. I can also confirm that the level of activity in the North sea was, I am glad to say, of a high order. New investment is at an all-time record of £3.7 billion this year, and the exploration and appraisal of wells is of a high order. As a result, the number of jobs—good jobs, too—created in Scotland is much higher than two years ago, and I am delighted by the progress of the oil and gas sector of the Scottish coast and on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
§ Mr. WallaceI am sure that the Minister will accept that there has been a number of job losses since the take-over of Britoil by BP, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). There has also been a significant number of job losses in my constituency with the withdrawal of BP from its oil supply base at Lerwick, about which I have seen the Minister. Many people will wonder whether the golden share is worth anything at all when a Government who proclaimed the independence of Britoil when it was privatised and believe in competition were unable to use it to stop the takeover of Britain's largest independent company by one of the biggest companies in the United Kingdom as a whole.
In the Select Committee report there was a suggestion that BP had brought forward oil drilling into 1990. The Select Committee specifically recommended that his Department should monitor BP drilling in 1991 and beyond. What powers does he now have to take action if that level of drilling in 1991 and beyond falls far short of what would have been expected from the assurances given by BP at the outset of the take-over?
§ Mr. MorrisonI fully accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there have been some job losses. However, as I have said, there have been some job gains, and just over 500 is the net figure of the increase. I am sure that he will agree that the proper structure of the organisation—the way it balances its labour force and so on—is a matter for BP. The net figure has more than met the assurances.
The hon. Gentleman said that he does not believe that the special share was of any particular use. The letter written two years ago by Sir Peter Walters to Sir Peter Middleton giving the assurances demonstrated precisely what use it was. That would have been no good on paper if the assurances had not been met, and in practice they have been. The letter referred to the period "up to 1990". That is the period we have had to consider and monitor carefully. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done so.
As for the future, BP will be able to operate in the North sea in the same way as any other international oil company and, if I may say so, it should be able to do so.
1309 It is because of the freedom of movement that so many major international oil companies, including BP in a big way, are pouring literally tens of millions of pounds into further exploration on the United Kingdom continental shelf and particularly the North sea. The interest I have found in the 12th and frontier rounds is of a high order and I suggest that that is because of the free market we operate. Those companies could just as easily put their money into Indonesia or offshore Brazil or Australia. They choose to come here because, subject to the licence and a tough safety regime, they are allowed to be free agents. We should welcome that.
§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is exceptionally good news for Scotland for investment, expansion and the long-term future of the oil industry? Does he agree that the Scottish Office and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry have played a part in achieving it? Can my right hon. Friend give a breakdown of jobs in the future? How many does he anticipate being in the headquarters in Glasgow and how many does he anticipate in the north-east, particularly around Aberdeen?
§ Mr. MorrisonI can certainly confirm that the discussions that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office and I have with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy about the North sea are perhaps not on a daily basis, but they are on a weekly basis. We could not work more closely together. I agree with my hon. Friend that the news for Scotland, as well as for the United Kingdom as a whole, is unadulteratedly good in terms of what is happening in the oil and gas sector and the knock-on effects that brings with it in terms of the supply company, the fabrication yards and so on.
I have with me the most up-to-date figures I have for the number of jobs in Glasgow and in Aberdeen, and I hope that it will be helpful to my hon. Friend. There will be 3,500 in Aberdeen, 1,155 in Glasgow and 880 in places such as Sullom Voe and elsewhere. In total that is 5,545. That is direct BP employment. There will be related jobs because of BP orders being given to the yards and so on.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I came in quite by chance just as the Minister was getting to his feet. It is a disgrace that this statement has been made this morning. It is far from the action of a decent and honourable Government to do such a thing, given that so many of my colleagues are in their constituencies in Scotland.
The offshore oil and gas industries have not made Scotland a land of milk and honey in terms of employment. My constituency has had a long and often not very happy relationship with Britoil. It will surely agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that job losses were suffered by constituents of mine who worked for Britoil. For many people in and around Glasgow who work for Britoil—the Britoil-BP company is chaired by a Greenockian, Sir Robin Duthie—the golden share was seen as a sort of insurance policy. It was seen as a guarantee that their interests would be cared for.
With regard to jobs, has BP given an assurance that orders for offshore structures will be placed with Scottish companies? There is still under-capacity in the offshore 1310 yards in Scotland, particularly at Scott Lithgow. The Minister has not played the game with people in Scotland today.
§ Mr. MorrisonI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that it was a mistake to make a statement. In previous announcements about golden shares, there have been statements and written answers. I offered the Opposition a statement if that was what they preferred, because I realised that there was considerable interest. That is why I have come to the House to answer any questions that hon. Members may wish to put.
The hon. Gentleman said that the employees of Britoil in Glasgow lay much store with the special share. That is true. They thought it important at the time of the takeover that the assurance should be sought and given and should be adhered to. That is precisely what was happened. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, a week or so ago, BP announced that it was to form a Scottish advisory board under the chairmanship of the chairman of the BP group, with Sir Robin Duthie as the deputy chairman. I believe that I am right in saying—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that that advisory board has been welcomed. It was welcomed in an editorial in The Scotsman.
With regard to the terms of reference of the advisory board, the chairman of BP said:
I believe it is important that decisions relating to our Scottish activities should get the benefit of sound advice from a Scottish perspective. The Advisory Board will achieve this and also help BP to meet its wider obligations to the Scottish community.That is a strong and firm commitment to Scotland by the chairman of BP.The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the level of United Kingdom content of services, including fabrication, for the North sea is just over 80 per cent. By any stretch of the imagination that is a lion's share, and we have achieved it because we happen to be more competitive, more professional and better than our international competitors. I would not expect any company operating in the North sea to give a categorical undertaking that it will always buy British. If I did expect that, I would frighten those companies away and they would not spend the hundreds of millions of pounds that they do spend on exploration and appraisal, and the 12th and frontier rounds would not be a great success.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that this is a private Members' day. I will endeavour to call those hon. Members who are rising, but we should get back to private Member's motion in 10 minutes. I ask hon. Members to be brief.
§ Mr. Peter Rost (Erewash)Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Select Committee on Energy very carefully considered BP's takeover of Britoil? The Select Committee took all the evidence, saw all the documents and concluded that the accusations that BP had not met its original agreements and commitments were totally unsubstantiated and quite contrary to the misleading statements made by the Opposition Front Bench Spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As I am the only member of the Select Committee present in the Chamber today who worked on that report, I hope that my right hon. Friend 1311 the Minister will persuade the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to withdraw his quite misleading comments.
§ Mr. MorrisonI am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall that I was a witness before the Committee. When the Committee had considered carefully what BP had to say and considered how the Department was monitoring the assurances, it reached the same conclusions as those drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost). I am afraid that I cannot make the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who speaks for the Opposition, withdraw his remarks. I am not responsible for him, no matter how wrong he may have got it in this case.
§ Mr. Alan WilliamsDoes not the Minister realise that the Government will be seen as cowardly and shifty for making this statement without warning on the last Friday before three months of parliamentary recess? Is not the impact of the Minister's comments today the fact that, having sold off an important national asset, he has now given away the last protection of the national interest? Will he spell out what the taxpayer will get in exchange for this surrender? Will he also give us a clue about the future? After the next reshuffle or election, which ex-Minister can we expect to see joining the board?
§ Mr. MorrisonI do not think that coming to the House and making a statement is either cowardly or covering up. I have allowed myself to be cross-questioned by Opposition Members. I cannot look into the crystal ball and say what benefits might accrue in future in terms of BP and its contribution to the economy. However, BP is wholly committeed to its investments in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom Treasury benefits substantially from the company's success and the profits.
§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)Does my right hon. Friend agree that the golden share mechanism is a blunt instrument which has no part to play in the longer term structure of a company? Is it not surprising that Opposition Members have made no reference to the Opposition's oil policy? Does my right hon. Friend recall the busted flush or five-legged camel known as the British National Oil Corporation? Does he agree that, since 1979, the Government have freed the oil industry? My right hon. Friend's announcement today will continue to free the oil industry, and that is a great benefit to workers and taxpayers.
§ Mr. MorrisonI certainly agree with my hon. Friend that in this case the special share had run to the end of its useful life. I have seen what one Opposition Front Bench spokesman has had to say about the Opposition's policy on oil and gas, and I quite understand why the Opposition now want to cover it up as fast as they can.
§ Mr. SkinnerNow that the golden share has been removed and any participation by the state has been lifted, will the Minister guarantee that no ex-Tory Minister, Cabinet or otherwise, will get a job on the board? Will he also give a categorical assurance as an ex-vice chairman of the Tory party that the Tory party will never collect funds from BP or any of its subsidiaries? Will he give us that guarantee?
§ Mr. MorrisonMy answers to the hon. Gentleman are no and no. Of all people, the hon. Gentleman likes freedom and it would be wholly wrong for me—
§ Mr. SkinnerAre you going to moonlight?
§ Mr. MorrisonHe likes freedom and it would be wholly wrong of me to restrict anybody from being asked or joining any particular board.
§ Mr. SpearingCan the Minister give any reason why his statement could not have been made on Monday or any other day next week? Does he agree that, while statements and other actions in the House may be important, actions that go against general understandings are not acceptable unless there is very good reason for them? Is it not clear that, if the Government cannot properly give a square deal to the nation of Scotland, which is part of our United Kingdom and Union of nations, we cannot expect the Government to properly defend the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster in any wider union of nations that may be proposed?
§ Mr. MorrisonOn the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, outside of London and my constituency, I visit Scotland more than any other part of the country, and rightly so.
§ Mr. DobsonYou own part of it.
§ Mr. MorrisonNo, my eldest brother does.
The contribution which the oil and gas sector makes to the Scottish economy is significant and we want that regime to continue in the way that I have outlined.
With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is not for me to meddle in matters of business management. Suffice it to say that I gather that there are a number of statements pending for next week and I thought that it was best, as I have said, to come to the House as soon as the decision had been made to be cross-questioned by whomsoever wished to put questions to me. I informed the Opposition last night.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)Would not most independent analysts conclude that, with the sophistication of the international oil exploration markets, blocking mechanisms like the one we are discussing today have outlived their usefulness?
Is it not also rather depressing that some hon. Members according to the exchanges in the Chamber today do not seem to have learnt the lessons of the past 10 years? Large companies like the one that we are discussing really must be allowed to run their own affairs. Despite all the glitz and glitter of Labour party documents claiming that Labour has understood that, the Opposition clearly have not. They want to go back in history, interfere and return to the bad old days. My right hon. Friend's announcement today is very timely.
§ Mr. MorrisonMy hon. Friend is 100 per cent. right. However much the Opposition protest, they would not for a second stop interfering in the activities of many oil companies operating off the Scottish coast. That would lead to much less investment in exploration and appraisal and that would lead to fewer jobs.
§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)Does not the Minister accept that any sensible Government would have retained the golden share to maintain an influence on this country's energy policy and on investment in jobs in Scotland? Has 1313 the right hon. Gentleman not put party dogma first and sold those down the river today? Has he not sent out a clear signal to the other industries with a golden share that that share means nothing at all because the Government believe in market forces and not in the prosperity of the country as a whole?
§ Mr. MorrisonThere is nothing dogmatic about doing what one said one would do. We said that, once the assurances had been met, we would release the golden share—the special share and that is precisely what we are doing today.
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)Does my right hon. Friend accept that, apart from spurious anger, some of the other comments expressed today have been unfair to the biggest and most profitable British company, which is one of the top four companies in the world? The taxation income brought in by British Petroleum and the thousands of millions of pounds that it has invested in North sea oil brings us huge tax revenues, huge sums of which go to support the Scottish economy. Have we now reached the stage where Scotland does not look upon itself as part of the United Kingdom, but wants to operate only in this little narrow vessel, which is what makes Scotland so unappetising to many industrialists?
§ Mr. MorrisonI agree with my hon. Friend. The frightening thing is that the international oil companies will read what has been said this morning and will therefore see what the Labour party would do in the unlikely event of it coming to power in, say, the year 2020. A significant number of hon. Members still want to intervene in the North sea in a major way, and that is what will drive away lots of investment and cut the labour force substantially.
§ Mr. AllenThere is not a great deal of family silver left to sell, but with the Government's economic problems, it is pretty clear that they will sell off every thing they can. I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues, and I ask him and them to give the House an assurance that the golden shares and other Government shareholdings in British Telecom, British Aerospace, British Steel Enterprise Ltd., the water companies, Jaguar, Sealink, Cable and Wireless and other companies will be retained. Many of us feel that this announcement is a prelude to the grand closing down sale of the Thatcher Government.
§ Mr. MorrisonThe hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give such an assurance because, as he appreciates, all the golden shares to which he has referred are matters for my right hon. Friends the various Secretaries of State concerned. That is how the matter lies. In future each will be looked at over a period on its merits.
§ Mr. DobsonAs the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) has cast some doubt on the accuracy of what I said about the report of the Select Committee on Energy, will the Minister confirm that, as recently as 13 December last year, the Select Committee on Energy stated of the employment assurance:
we are not ourselves convinced that BP's recent policy is fully in accord with the spirit of that assurance".1314 It also stated:The Special Share in Britoil should remain in existence for the time being.In what the Committee then described as its "main conclusions"—those are the Committee's words, not mine—it stated:It is debatable whether the proposed asset sale to Oryx can properly be considered to be 'in the ordinary course of trading'. Further substantial asset sales would not be consistent with the assurances.Will the Minister confirm that, by removing the golden share he can no longer prevent further substantial asset sales and, indeed, that that is a likely consequence?Finally, will the Minister clarify what he said and confirm that the decision taken on the golden share by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland, which may cost the Treasury as much as £100 million in lost revenue, was taken without any consideration being given to that loss of revenue?
§ Mr. MorrisonOn asset sales, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, when there is a change of ownership, there is a process within the Department by which the Department looks at it carefully and either approves or does not approve it. In that respect, the Department will keep some control, as it would be for any asset sale in the North sea—and rightly so, because the licences were given to a particular group, which gave certain undertakings in its application for the licence.
It would be wholly inappropriate for me to delve into the matter of—
§ Mr. DobsonWhy?
§ Mr. MorrisonBecause I am concerned about whether Sir Peter Walters's assurances were or were not met. That is what the special share was about and that is what I have adhered to, taking into account the Select Committee's thorough consideration of the matter. I have concluded, with my right hon. Friend's, that all the conditions have been met and that is why the special share will be redeemed.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe now return to the—
§ Mr. WallaceOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is on his feet—
§ Mr. WallaceI shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that the Minister said that he had informed the official Opposition last night that this statement would be made. While my hon. Friends and I do not expect to be consulted about whether a statement is to be made, do you agree that it would have been a courtesy to tell other Opposition parties about the statement, especially since my party and hon. Members from the Scottish National party represent constituencies that have a significant interest in the oil industry.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat will have been noted by those on the Front Bench. We now return to the debate on the importance of the promotion of good health. Mr. Alex Carlile.