§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why preferential treatment in respect of the disposal of shares held by Her Majesty's Government in the British Petroleum Company Limited is being given to applications made by or on behalf of United Kingdom occupational pension schemes; and whether it is intended that this shall set a precedent for giving preference to one category of citizens over another when other public property is being disposed of by way of sale.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)My Lords, the Government were concerned to give United Kingdom citizens every opportunity to take a stake, directly or indirectly, in this company. Occupational 2 pension funds, which represent so many individuals, were therefore accorded formal preference in the allocation; and, moreover, applicants who applied for up to 150 shares obtained in full what they applied for. The disposal of nearly 67 million ordinary stock units was wholly exceptional and does not set a precedent in any respect.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, while declaring an interest as, unhappily, a very small shareholder in this company, may I put to the noble and learned Lord that there is here a question of principle affecting the disposal of public property? Has it not been the practice for many years, at least since the Crichel Down affair, that when the property of the State is disposed of all citizens have an equal opportunity to acquire it?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, in this matter, on the part of the Government there was a deliberate wish to favour the small investor. That is a wish which has been commended by many commentators, and indeed every member of the public could qualify as a small investor, come forward and obtain a preference. That was plain and the Government went to unprecedented lengths to ensure that members of the public were made aware of their right. Occupational pension schemes cover 14 million people in this country and I would respectfully suggest that the Government's action in disposing of this property in such I a way should not incur criticism.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, whatever the merits of occupational pension schemes, and I share the Government's admiration for them, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether there are not other bodies of equal merit, such as charities and the Church Commissioners? Will the noble and learned Lord, none the less, come back to the real point which I put to him earlier: Is not this a departure from the previous principle of equality of opportunity when Government property is disposed of? Will be answer the terms of my original Question: is it or is it not intended hereby to create a precedent?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that this was not a sale of Government property direct to a member of the public, but was simply conferring a preference in the event of there being over-subscription. I would suggest that that matter ought to be looked at on its own merits.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, have we not reached the stage when it is quite difficult to find out who is a citizen of this country and who is not? Pension funds are a jolly good way of finding out, so are not the Government to be congratulated on their ingenuity?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYWe will accept congratulations even from our own Back-Benches, my Lords.
§ Lord THORNEYCROFTMy Lords, while fully understanding and agreeing with the importance of occupational pension schemes, may I ask whether the noble and learned Lord is saying that this will not be done again? Is that what he means when he says that this is a wholly exceptional situation? I cannot quite follow his reasons for saying that this is an exceptional case. On future occasions when public property is being disposed of, are we right in assuming that all potential shareholders will be treated in the same way?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, I do not think I said—or, if I did, I did not intend to say it—that it would not be done again. What I said and what I mean, and what I want to say quite clearly, is that this was an unprecedented sale, and I am sure that the noble Lord would not disagree with me in relation to that. This 4 was a sale of nearly 67 million units of stock for a price of about £560 million. That was unprecedented and it does not in itself set a precedent for other matters; each case of this kind requires to be looked at on its own merits.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, does the Committee which used to sit under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Duchy, in order to recommend the disposal of Government property, still exist? If so, did it sit in this case and did it recommend the action that has been taken?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the original Question, he will see that it concerned giving preference to one category of citizens over another. When considering that Question, I did not take into account the point which the noble Lord has raised, and I will, if he wishes, write to him on the matter.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that undue fuss is being made about this matter? Is it not a fact that, in every issue for the sale of shares, where there is extensive stagging individual applications do not get equal treatment? Is it not a fact, for example, that applicants for up to 500 shares may get a full allotment, that those for 1,000 shares may get three-quarters of their application, while those for 20,000 may get 5 per cent. of their application?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, on the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, he is absolutely right. In relation to the first part, it may be that there is too much of a fuss; but, having regard to the scale of the operation and the fact that it is Government property, the Government welcome the opportunity to explain themselves in public, and I do not retreat from that.