I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on securing a place in this important debate, if not on securing this place.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate one of the most important sets of issues on the economic agenda of politics. The importance of this series of issues is unquestioned except, it seems, on the Opposition Benches. One would have expected that on the issues of denationalisation and wider share ownership, on which my hon. Friend has spoken so eloquently and in such an informed way, there would be some interest from the Labour Benches. What do we see? We see the Labour Benches with but a sole occupant, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who was quick to point out that he was present not to have anything to do with this debate, but to secure his position in the subsequent debate. I have the pleasure of also participating in that debate.

It is surprising and disappointing that my hon. Friend and I should be conducting this debate between ourselves because I suspect that we shall find that we agree on most points. It would have been interesting to hear the Labour party's view, or perhaps today's view, on denationalisation and the ownership of shares., Does it think that that is good, worthwhile, helpful activity, as we do? It is disappointing that, when these grave and important issues come before the House, all that we hear from the Labour party is a long and deafening silence. My hon. Friend and I will have to make up the deficit between us and see what we can do to throw light on the issues.

My hon. Friend has spoken in a learned fashion on the subject of privatisation. He has gone through many of the merits of the process and has illustrated his case with a wealth of examples. Privatisation has been one of the many stunning successes of the Government's economic and social policies over the nearly 12 years that they have been in office. The policy was highly controversial at its outset; gradually, as the process has continued, it has become less so. The Labour party has gradually moved away from its root-and-branch opposition to the very idea of denationalisation to something which is at best ambivalent, a sort of muted hostility.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, South is temporarily leaving his place, because it would be interesting to hear from the sole representative of the Labour party present what the current view of the Labour party is on that great issue.

Since 1979, as my hon. Friend has said, a great many companies have been privatised—transferred from state ownership into what I would call genuine public ownership where the public own the shares in the business. More than 900,000 jobs have been transferred to the private sector. The state-owned sector of industry has fallen by more than 60 per cent. since 1979. Generally, the result has been that the industries have been subjected to much greater competition than hitherto, but even where a monopoly has been privatised, there has been tough and transparent regulation to protect the consumers while allowing private sector standards of efficiency to be injected into the business.

The total proceeds so far are some £28·5 billion before the present sale of the electricity generating companies. The performance of companies that have been transferred back into genuine public ownership has been, as my hon. Friend pointed out, startling. The pre-tax profits of British Aerospace have increased more than fivefold since 1981 when it was privatised. The profits of the National Freight Consortium are up almost 22 times since privatisation and the recent successful flotation on the stock exchange.

As my hon. Friend vividly illustrated, there are benefits to consumers. British Telecom's prices are down 22·5 per cent. in real terms since 1984. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his historic statement to the House some two weeks ago in which he announced the end of BT's duopoly, showed how the benefits of competition, of denationalisation, come through so sharply and distinctly to the consumers of the services. He announced further price reductions as a direct result of the benign policy that we have pursued. There are 17 per cent. more pay phones than in 1984—pay phones that work, compared with the position before privatisation when one's chances of finding a pay phone that worked were slight. The domestic prices of British Gas are down 10 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.

Privatisation has made companies that play an important role in the British economy more successful and has contributed substantially to economic growth and the dynamism of the British economy. That process will continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for York referred to some of the candidates for privatisation—the significant businesses still under state ownership on which the spotlight should properly fall. He mentioned British Coal and he will be aware of our pledge to privatise the coal industry.

My hon. Friend referred to British Rail, which he knows extremely well and the interests of which are close to his heart. When he makes the case for privatisation, the Government must listen with much respect because of his close Constituency and other interests in the industry. We cannot contemplate privatisaton in this Parliament and no firm decisions have been taken, but it is very much on the agenda.

My hon. Friend also referred to the Post Office, parts of which have been denationalised. Girobank was sold and is operating successfully in the private sector. Further consideration is being given to privatising other parts of the Post Office.

I shall devote a little attention to the share ownership aspects of my hon. Friend's speech. Privatisation and share ownership go closely together but are not dependent on each other. There is no doubt that the flotation of shares in some of the larger previously state-owned companies has given share ownership a huge boost. Share ownership would have increased in any event, but probably not to the extent that it has. In the United States, without the stimulus of privatisation, 25 per cent. of adults own shares. Share ownership in Britain is almost as high. There is not the same depth of share ownership, but I hope that that will develop.

During this Government's period of office there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of shareholders. Share ownership used to be seen as the preserve of the wealthy or the professional classes. Now it is the choice of all classes. Direct ownership of shares in British companies has spread throughout the nation.

In 1979, only 7 per cent. of the adult population owned shares. That figure had been more or less constant for many years. A few companies had been distributing shares to their employees and a few eloquent voices called for wider share ownership. However, the prospects for progress at that stage seemed to be few. Since then, share ownership has spread more widely every year. The growth has been steady, particularly since 1984, and the results have been spectacular.

By January 1990, 24 per cent. of the adult population owned shares. Nearly one in every four adults was by then a share owner. We have long envied such a level of share ownership in other countries such as Japan and the United States. Many people thought that such a level of share ownership was impossible to achieve in the United Kingdom. A great deal of progress has been made as a result of much attention having been paid to this important issue.

My hon. Friend referred to the CBI's task force and its useful and interesting report. Converts to the cause are being made all the time. At last July's meeting of the National Economic Development Council it was a pleasant surprise to find that even the Trades Union Congress was reasonably positive. Its general secretary declared himself to be a "not unsceptical convert" to the cause. I suppose that that is a start. As time goes on and as he begins to understand better what share ownership means, he may become a wholly unsceptical convert. That is a helpful and beneficent development.

Some people—including some hon. Members—may still be doubters. It is worth, therefore, saying a few words about why share ownership is an important objective. A property-owning democracy was advocated as long ago as 1929 by Sir Anthony Eden. Since then we have worked ceaselessly to encourage home ownership. We have been very successful. Capital ownership is the next stage after home ownership. Owning some capital provides a family with the same independence, self-reliance and security as home ownership. That is why we encourage families and individuals to save. We have set out to revive and restore the habit of thrift.

Savings have a double value. They provide security for savers and they also provide funds for investment, which benefits the whole economy. Shares—ordinary equity—form the clearest link between savings and investment. It is the point at which the cultures of thrift and enterprise join. They produce a feeling in shareholders of direct involvement in the affairs of the company in which they have chosen to invest. That is particularly beneficial for employee shareholders. Anyone who owns shares in the company for which he or she works has every incentive to do his or her best for that company and to encourage co-workers also to do their best, since they will all benefit from its success.

The same is true of all shareholders. Ultimately, the future prosperity of everyone in the country depends upon the performance of British companies. Share ownership makes that sometimes harsh fact more obvious. It brings the investor directly into contact with the risks and rewards of capitalism and it is a key element in the culture of enterprise.

My hon. Friend referred to a number of steps that the Government have taken to promote share ownership. It can be fairly said that those steps have been successful. There would in any event have been some development towards the cause of wider share ownership, which we all espouse, but Government stimulus has been helpful to the process.

Some tax benefits have been attached to employee share ownership schemes, for instance. The process has been effected on a strictly voluntary basis; we do not believe in coercing firms into adopting bureaucratic models of employee involvement that may well turn out to be ill-suited to their needs. We believe in fostering employee involvement in the ways judged best for each company and its work force. Share ownership is one of the most valuable methods of promoting involvement. The aim is to produce an identity of interest between the worker and the shareholder. The simplest way of doing that is when they are one and the same person. That provides the strongest possible incentive to work for the prosperity of the company.

To this end, we have established a number of different models of approved employee share schemes, providing different kinds of tax relief to accompany them. Perhaps the two most important of the all-employee share schemes are the profit-sharing scheme and the savings-related share option scheme. I am pleased to say that the latest year for which figures are available, 1989–90, was a record year for all employee schemes: 1·3 million employees were granted shares or options over shares, with a total initial value of £1,370 million. For the holders of options, the value of the shares when they come to exercise their options may be significantly higher, although that depends, as it should, on their companies' performances.

By the end of 1989–90 a total of 890 profit-sharing schemes had been approved, as had 891 savings-related share option schemes. In all, about 2·25 million employees have benefited from these schemes, receiving shares or options worth an initial value of £6·5 billion. New companies continue to introduce such schemes. One hundred and seventy-eight new schemes were approved in 1989–90 and I hope that more companies will open such schemes in future.

We also welcome firms setting up their own employees' share arrangements, which may fall outside tax-relieved approved share schemes under the Finance Act. No company will be forced into the framework of that Act.

I am glad of the opportunity to comment on this important subject. It is delightful to see Opposition Members coming into the Chamber as the debate moves on. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—it is a great pleasure to see him gracing the Opposition Benches at this time in the morning—is here for this debate or the following one. If he is keeping his powder dry for the next debate, I look forward to discussing that important matter with him.

I must, however, register again my disappointment that the Opposition have not felt this an important enough subject to come to the House and say where they stand on these weighty matters——