By STEPHEN McGREGOR,
Parliamentary Correspondent
OPPOSITION MPs last night united in their condemnation of the
Government's response to a critical report from the Commons Energy
Select Committee on the BP takeover of Britoil in February 1988.
The Government's comments, released yesterday, were described as
totally inadequate and insulting by the SNP, while the Liberal Democrats
spoke of a whitewash and Labour accused the Government of turning its
back on questionable industrial practices.
In marked contrast to the tone of the committee's findings, the
Government has taken a considerably softer line with BP, claiming that
''important benefits for the UK and for Scotland in particular have
resulted from the acquisition.''
It states in the response: ''The reserves of Britoil's producing
fields have been upgraded by an average of 24.5%. Exploration activity
has increased significantly and development work is at a high level.
''Glasgow has become BP Exploration's European headquarters,
concentrating new responsibilities, new activity and the direction of
future business in Scotland and bringing consequential benefits to the
city.''
The Government also appears to be paving the way for dispensing with
its ''golden share'' in Britoil, possibly by the end of this year.
The Energy Committee report, published last December, centred on two
key aspects of the takeover -- assurances given by BP on employment in
Scotland and sales of Britoil assets.
It concluded that while BP had complied with the letter of assurances
on jobs in Scotland, it was not convinced the company had acted ''fully
in accord with the spirit of that assurance.''
BP has maintained that, despite the 970 redundancies in Aberdeen and
Glasgow announced last year, it now employs many more people in Scotland
than at the time of the takeover.
However, union representatives and others have claimed that jobs in
Scotland were sacrificed in order to make way for the transfer of BP
employees from London.
The overall impression given by the committee was that BP deserved a
firm rap over the knuckles and that it would have to tread carefully in
its future treatment of Britoil assets and staff.
However, the Government appears not to share the committee's view. On
jobs, the Government's response says: ''BP's assurance was that overall
employee numbers in Aberdeen and Glasgow, taking BP and Britoil
together, would not fall as a result of the acquisition.
''BP has made clear both to the Department (of Energy) and to the
committee that the combined staff numbers in Aberdeen and Glasgow, after
the implementation of the restructuring, will remain higher than at the
time of the purchase of Britoil. On this basis, the Department is
satisfied that the terms of the assurance have been met.''
On the sale of $610m worth of Britoil's UK Continental Shelf assets,
it says: ''The department concluded that the asset value concerned was
not so large as to fall outside the ordinary course of trading in the
particular context of UKCS activity and of BP, who have assets of over
#20 billion and annual after-tax earnings in excess of #1 billion.''
The SNP's Energy spokesman, Mr Alex Salmond, who is a member of the
Energy Select Committee, said: ''The Government's reply to the
committee's report is totally inadequate and an insult to the 1000
people who lost their jobs in Scotland as a result of BP
rationalisation.
''In ignoring many of the key findings, the Department, under Tory
control, has once again demonstrated that it is not fit to independently
police the North Sea and certainly has no intention of protecting
Scottish interests.''
Shadow Scottish Secretary Mr Donald Dewar said: ''For many in Scotland
this means that the company has got away with actions which were outside
the spirit of its assurances. The Government's refusal to respond in a
more positive way will cause understandable bitterness among those who
have lost their jobs.''
Mr Malcolm Bruce, Energy spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said:
''In clearing BP of reneging on job promises in Scotland, the Government
has delivered an utterly predictable whitewash.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article