§
Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 39, line 34, leave out
Secretary of State considers and the Treasury agree",
§ and insert "Treasury considers".
§ Read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have to call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in this amendment.
§ Mr. RathboneI beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after 'Treasury', insert:
'having consulted the Secretary of State'.My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and I take cognisance of the stated intention of the Government to disagree with the Lords amendment.The flow of funds under the control and management of the Secretary of State is enormous. The funds represent about £900 million in borrowing and between £700 million and £750 million in revenue. Those are the funds which flow in and out of the National Oil Account. The Lords amendment has been drawn because of the requirement for special surveillance of these funds. The Secretary of State has decided to disagree with the Lords amendment and in doing so to deny proper surveillance on behalf of the taxpayers. Without disagreeing with the Lords amendment, but noting the disagreement expressed by the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend and I have tried to strike common ground between the position of the noble amenders and the Government.
8.0 p.m.
We hope that the amendment will allow the Government better to appreciate that the Treasury has responsibility for the proper management of the total funds of the United Kingdom and must therefore be in a position of direct influence and management of the huge National Oil Account.
There are and there will be necessary investments by the BNOC as its rôle develops under the Bill. I deplore these developments, but it will inevitably develop after this evening. We have particularly to take cognisance of developments of alternative sources of power, through nuclear fission and from the oceans, against the future day of diminished oil resources. That is why this amendment suggests consultation by the Treasury with the Secretary of State before transferring surplus BNOC funds to the Exchequer. What, I suggest, could be more reasonable? But control must be by and with the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State, and not by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Treasury.
497 The Government almost admitted the need for Treasury control when the Minister himself said in Committee that the oil account
will make the BNOC's revenues available to the Government immediate and direct."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26th June, 1975; col. 914.]Without Treasury responsibility, I submit that this availability might never happen.The importance of proper financial control has never been argued on either side. The Minister drew attention to it in Committee, in terms of the amounts of moneys involved. The amount he cited at that time was between £2 billion and £3 billion in terms of the responsibilities due to the exemption from the petroleum revenue tax, which we have already discussed this afternoon, and in terms of the enormous importance to the national economy.
In moving the amendment, I sincerely hope that it may humbly make the Lords amendment not only correct in principle but acceptable to the Secretary of State and to his right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that they will support its reasonableness, its moderation and—dare I say?—its good sense.
§ Mr. Tim RentonI support the amendment which has just been moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone).
I have always thought it extraordinary that Clause 40 is the first in the Bill to come under the heading "Miscellaneous". There could be nothing less miscellaneous than the National Oil Account and the revenues that will flow from oil.
The first point to establish is that by no manner of means will all the money from the North Sea, to use a loose term, flow into the National Oil Account. Assuming that by 1980 half the investment write-offs have been taken, and taking oil at $12 a barrel—and assuming, further, that inflation in oil prices is set off against inflation in operating costs, the figure of £3 billion by 1980 does not seem an unreasonable estimate of the annual total that will flow to the Government. Of that sum, approximately £700 million will go across into the National Oil Account through royalties, and the balance of £2.3 billion will flow to the Treasury by virtue of PRT and corporation tax.
498 There is no question of money from the North Sea being solely under the determination and discretion of the Secretary of State for Energy. If that were so, there might be some commercial logic in saying that one Minister alone should be responsible for this vast sum of money, but that is not the case.
The £700 million of gross revenue, that will come into the National Oil Account, will clearly put the Secretary of State for Energy in a very powerful position. He will be, perhaps, the only Minister who will have at his behest a positive cash flow, to use as he wishes in terms of downstream diversification of BNOC, or whatever other ambition he wishes to pursue.
This prospect, particularly when £700 million is to be in the hands of the present Secretary of State for Energy, is an alarming one. One has only to look back at the track record of the Secretary of State for Energy—the RB211, NVT and other notable failures with which he has been associated—to wonder how he will spend that £700 million. Other than the fact of giving the Secretary of State for Energy a positive cash flow for him to disburse, I have seen no reasonable argument advanced by the Government Ministers to show why this part of revenue from the North Sea should flow into an account that is controlled and administered by the Secretary of State rather than follow the traditional method of control, as my hon. Friend has just set forth, of flowing to the Treasury.
One other argument has occurred to me, which I have not seen put forward by Ministers. I have wondered whether the reason that the royalty income is to come into the National Oil Account is that the foreign lenders—from whom BNOC may in the years immediately ahead borrow up to £900 million—are themselves insisting that the known revenue from royalties in those years should come into the National Oil Account, so that they can be certain, having made loans to BNOC, that there will be revenue from which they can be repaid. If this is the reason, and this is being done at the suggestion of overseas lenders, Ministers should come clean and tell us so.
One can well understand that, with such a wildly profligate Government as this one, creditors do not wish to see the 499 royalty income disappearing into the general maw of Government money but want to see it in the separate account from which they can know that the loans they make now will be repaid in future years.
I have no great sympathy with the Treasury but, as my hon. Friend has just said, ours is a very modest amendment. All that we are suggesting is that the Treasury, having consulted the Secretary of State for Energy, should pay over the surplus funds into the Consolidated Fund.
We heard earlier this afternoon that there are to be two civil servants on the board of BNOC—one from the Treasury and one from the Department of Energy. Is it really impossible to imagine that these two, with their political masters, will consult together to decide what are the surplus funds? Surely it will be by the co-operation of these two civil servants that the decision will be made to return surplus money to the Consolidated Fund.
Is the Treasury lion never to lie down with the Energy lamb? I suggest that it can, and that in accepting our amendment—I find it very hard to see how the Minister can refuse it—the Minister will be putting the onus where it properly should be, so that the Treasury will first consult the Department of Energy, and will then pay over the National Oil Account surplus to the Consolidated Fund.
§ Mr. LeadbitterI want to attack what I believe is the lack of logic in the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). He has wasted some time—this is often a temptation to certain hon. Members on the Opposition benches—in talking about the Secretary of State's track record. If we want to enter into confessions on either side of the House, I admit that some track records look pretty dim, but it is not a proper debating point—on a matter of some importance, as the hon. Member has suggested this is—for the National Oil Account to be referred to in personal terms of a sort which I find completely distasteful.
The Opposition are always attempting to tell the people that they are the only respectable Members of this House. I do not want to be drawn into that argu- 500 ment now, but surely in this House we should have less of this nonsense of personal attacks of this kind upon Government supporters—
§ Mr. Tim RentonWhat pomposity!
§ Mr. LeadbitterWe have had some pompous interventions from the Opposition benches about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not paying attention to their arguments. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will realise that this time I have not got my fishing line caught in a bush. If he knows anything about fishing, he will know that the man who holds his fishing line firmly will catch what he is after. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.
Here we have a remarkable situation. We are discussing Clause 40, and Opposition speakers have so far refrained from making it clear that they know that the Secretary of State has powers over a wide range of the oil account. For example, subsection (1) says:
There shall be an account, to be called the National Oil Account (and hereafter in this section referred to as 'the Account'), which subject to the following provisions of this section shall be under the control and management of the Secretary of State…".That has not been questioned by the Opposition and they have tabled no amendment to deal with it. Their distaste for the Secretary of State has not made them question my right hon. Friend's ability to deal with and to control the oil account.Subsection (2) says:
There shall be paid into the Account, in addition to any sums required to be paid into it by virtue of any other provision of this Act.—and then there is a reference toAll sums received by the Corporation".
§ Mr. RathboneOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the moment we are discussing the Opposition amendment tabled by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) which is an amendment to the amendment passed in the other place, and that has no bearing on what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is now discussing.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerPerhaps we had better wait to see how the hon. Member 501 for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) develops his argument.
§ Mr. LeadbitterWe are dealing with what is virtually the last act concerning the oil account, which is how the surpluses shall be dispensed with and how they shall be transferred into the Consolidated Fund. If the case is put, as it has been, purely on the basis that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the right to consider solely because of the Opposition's dislike of the Secretary of State, they should be honest about it and table an amendment dealing with every kind of responsible action which the Secretary of State is empowered to take in connection with this fund. That is my point.
The Opposition refrained from pointing out that the Secretary of State has certain other powers to dispense moneys in this account. They appear in subsection (3). Again, the Opposition have not questioned them.
§ Mr. RathboneOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for intervening yet again. It may be that I have misunderstood the procedures under which we are operating. I thought that we were discussing the Opposition amendment to the Lords amendment and that it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and myself, assuming that we had wished to do so, to table amendments to those parts of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Hartlepool is referring.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerPerhaps I can enlighten the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). We are discussing Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 and the Opposition amendment thereto. They are being discussed together. The argument of the hon. Member for Hartlepool is germane to the point.
§ Mr. LeadbitterPutting aside for the moment the fact that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) obviously cannot read, I have just referred to subsection (3) and to the very line to which his amendment to the Lords amendment relates. He should attend to our business more precisely rather than showing the extent to which his dislike of the strength of my argument illustrates how irresponsibly he is behaving.
502 Throughout our debate today we have had a fairly poor response from the Opposition. We expected a better standard from them. They have become more and more embarrassed as we have approached the matter now under discussion.
I come now to the precise matter that I was about to discuss before the hon. Member for Lewes intervened. It seems wrong, having got in this Bill extreme powers for the Secretary of State—powers rightly agreed to by this House, because there are no amendments tabled to say that this should not be the case—which are essential to the oil account, for the Opposition then to say that when the surpluses in the account have to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund the Secretary of State should have no say in the matter. That is illogical.
The basis of determining surpluses in the account is written into the Bill. I should have thought that agreement was a matter of technicality. I should have thought that it was a matter about which there would be complete agreement between the Secretary of State and the Treasury. I cannot imagine a situation where the Secretary of State could devise for himself definitions of surpluses which were not in the Bill. For that reason, I suggest that the hon. Member for Lewes and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex have again moved an amendment which will not gain very much support from their colleagues.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. John SmithWhen I read the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), I was tempted to think that they were motivated by a sense of genuine compromise and that they were trying to mediate between the Government and another place. What is more, the beguiling speech of the hon. Member for Lewes seemed to confirm that that was his intention. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex took part in the debate because, after he had spoken, he and his hon. Friend seemed like two witnesses who went into court to support a case without first consulting about the story that they would tell. The hon. Member for Lewes was anxious to be moderate and sensible in his proposal, 503 but the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex let the cat out of the bag and indulged in a certain amount of personality bashing which was quite unnecessary and added nothing to the argument.
The truth is that the Opposition amendment makes very little difference to the situation and does not to any substantial extent alter the amendment which came from the other place.
Perhaps I might remind the House that the National Oil Account is to be under the control and management of the Secretary of State. That is right. Its function is to act as the banker of the BNOC for which the Secretary of State will be the sponsoring Minister, as we were reminded by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) in an earlier debate. It will also account for royalties and other payments connected with licences issued by the Secretary of State.
Because the Secretary of State is responsible, it is right that he should have the clear duty to oversee and to account for all the operations of the National Oil Account and that he and his Department should be responsible for being accountable to Parliament for them. To introduce the Treasury in this one respect would give rise to confusion and split responsibilities, and even from the point of view of effective accountability to Parliament it is undesirable. Nor do I think that it is right to place a duty on the Treasury and its accounting officer when the day-to-day accounting will be conducted in the Department of Energy, and the Treasury officials would not independently have details of the transactions.
I wish to deal with the apparent belief in the minds of some hon. Members opposite that the National Oil Account and the Secretary of State's management of it confers a benefit on the Secretary of State or the British National Oil Corporation which this amendment would somehow remove. The expenditure of the BNOC will be determined not by the size of the National Oil Account but as part of the Government's decision on public expenditure as a whole in which the Treasury, to say the least, will play some rôle. The National Oil Account is not hypothecated revenue in the sense of 504 revenue earmarked exclusively for the BNOC. The surplus will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. As soon as money comes into the oil account, it will be available for reducing the Government's day-to-day calls in the market. Without the nationalised industry structure, the money would not be available. In that sense the National Oil Account helps the Treasury rather than hinders it.
The most important point of all is that in important decisions about public expenditure it is an illusion to think that Ministers in the Department take decisions independently. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, as a former Treasury Minster, knows that the Treasury is involved in all decisions on sizeable public expenditure. The Government are involved, through the Cabinet and Cabinet Committee system, in collective decisions of this kind. To suggest that there is some fiefdom in the Department of Energy, and that there are other completely different sectors of responsibility in other Government Departments, is to fail to understand the nature of government—and not only the nature of government now but the nature of government in this country over many years.
We have an illusion of a debate here, for it does not affect the reality very much. I hope the House will support the motion that we disagree with the Lords in this amendment, and will agree that the proposed amendment to the Lords amendment does not take us much further forward.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman use the word "fiefdom" in connection with what is being set up here. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in one of his earlier speeches, referred to Indonesia. From a recent article in the Guardian, we now know that Pertamina has brought "shame on Suharto" and, according to the article in the Guardian,
Under what has been described as a 'personal fiefdom', Pertamina was run by General Ibnu Sutowo, a close associate of General Suharto.We are obviously setting up the same sort of thing here.
§ Mr. SmithI do not think the right hon. Gentleman expects to be taken seriously in a remark of that sort. To get 505 the matter clear, I was referring to the view of the Opposition, not of the Government. One matter on which the right hon. Gentleman should be congratulated is the fact that during the course of the debate today, until just now, he has not had to use a quotation at all. Those of us who are accustomed to him papering the Standing Committee rooms with endless quotations have observed that lapse with a certain amount of regret.
§ Mr. RostCan the hon. Gentleman explain how the National Oil Account can be, as the noble Lord Balogh said, under the overall control of the Treasury? How can this be, under a structure which is set up with the Secretary of State having discretion as to how its finances are used?
§ Mr. SmithI believe that the answer is that which I have given earlier. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the collective nature of government. Important decisions about what leaves the National Oil Account and goes to the Consolidated Fund will be made collectively, and the precise statutory responsibility for accounting to Parliament is much less important than the hon. Gentleman imagines.
§ Mr. HannamI find it very disappointing that, despite the magnitude of the financial crisis facing the country, the Government should still conduct these doctrinaire and ideological arguments. In this debate about the National Oil Account we have another symptom of what I call the Socialist disease. We have the National Oil Account or what is known in the industry as the "Oil Slush Fund". We find ourselves committed to a State oil company which, even before it has started, has resulted in a slowing up in North Sea oil developments.
The Government, having set up the BNOC, begin to take fright at the costs in which they will be involved in obtaining their 51 per cent. participation. Thinking of the number of Finance Bills which would have to be passed through the House to obtain consent for the thousands of millions of pounds which will be required to obtain the 51 per cent. participation, the Government had to think of another dodge to present to Parliament in order to try to avoid the reality of these sums coming home to the people in the country. The dodge is the National Oil Account. The account is designed to grab 506 hold of the royalties and the revenue and feed them back on the BNOC for the Government, who are hungry for their 51 per cent. participation. The borrowing requirement of £2½ billion is apparently being reduced by this device to about £900 million, which appears in the Bill. The deception is in the Financial Memorandum, which refers to the £900 million limit on the borrowing. I hope that Ministers will listen to these points, because they are important.
§ Mr. John SmithThis is the fourth or fifth time that Ministers have been reminded that they should listen to remarks from Opposition Members. We are indeed paying attention to the debate.
§ Mr. HannamI am reassured to know that the Minister has been listening intently. It did not appear so. I apologise if I gained the wrong impression.
The figure of £900 million is a deception. The figure is in reality nearly three times that amount. It is money which would normally have gone to the Exchequer but which will now be going to the National Oil Account. In Committee we fought against this hypothecation of revenue, but we were unsuccessful by a one vote margin. Our concern now is to have necessary control over the "slush fund". To my hon. Friends and myself it is vital that when the oil account has more revenue coming in than has been taken out for BNOC purposes, these surplus funds should immediately go to the Consolidated Fund. In other words, the Treasury, which at times we regard as the guardian of our national coffers, should have the right to call on these funds. But the Bill states otherwise. It is only when the Secretary of State considers that the funds in the oil account exceed the amount required by the BNOC that the excess should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
This sensible Lords amendment gives the initiative back to the Treasury and, therefore, back into our hands in this House, rather than into the hands of the Secretary of State who, regardless of the strictures of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), has not got the best of track records in his past history in relation to expenditure in his own Ministry. There 507 is no point in going further than that. There have been attacks from both sides of the House on the performance of Ministers, and that is the only point that I am making. We all have our brushes with the Treasury over various matters. Usually, we are disappointed when we have been unsuccessful in squeezing more money out of the Treasury for particular constituency or other projects.
Those days are over. In the present economic situation, we must all fervently hope that, in the next few years at least, the Treasury will be able to curb our excessive and out-of-control level of public expenditure. But how can the Treasury do it in a massive area like the National Oil Account if it is deprived of the power to do so? It was interesting that in the debates in another place, support for this Lords amendment came from senior and respected ex-civil servants. One referred to a downgrading of the Treasury and the undesirable innovation of the Government's proposals.
8.30 p.m.
The Government seem to base their case for rejection of the amendment on the ground that adequate parliamentary control will rest with the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. But by the time they pinpoint any discrepancies in the use of this fund, a large amount of damage will have been caused. Apart from the possible misuse of the surplus funds by the corporation, there will be delay in payment to the Consolidated Fund. The Ministers argue that the chief purpose of the account is to make funds quickly available. That may be true as far as the Corporation is concerned, but once the surplus begins to build up there will be inevitable delay to the nation, because, first, the Secretary of State has to consider whether the fund really represents a surplus over the BNOC requirements, and the Corporation in addition has to agree with the Treasury before handing over the fund to the Exchequer.
How can the Treasury achieve a proper budgetary programme if it is unable to estimate accurately how much of this money will be available, and when? The argument for the account seems to be that it is to fund the Corporation in its early stages. I do not like the Corpora- 508 tion— I have made that clear. But if we have to have it, let us at least ensure that we have adequate control over the vast amount of taxpayers' money being diverted towards it. The cumbersome procedure of the Public Accounts Committee cannot provide the specific control that we need.
The Corporation will be rather like the canine companion of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) which we see on television. It is a hungry animal. It will be gobbling up billions of pounds of oil and royalty revenue in its pursuit of an unnecessary 51 per cent. participation. Those revenues could and should be going towards industrial investment and energy research. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said in Committee, much more expenditure should be directed towards developing alternative energy resources, such as solar, wind and wave power and geothermal power.
In the South-West, we have the best regional opportunities for the use of such energy resources. When we approached the Department during the summer for assistance in setting up a small research group, combining the efforts of scientists in universities in the South-West, we received a blank and non-committal reply. The Department said that it had no idea where the money could be found and had no resources to offer. Yet the whole South-West region could have energy provision in this way which could be taken off the back of the nation, and that is where the money should be going.
The National Oil Account is not the best way to deal with the revenues from the North Sea. All this structure is not necessary to ensure national control of oil and oil revenues. The oil revenues would have continued to flow into the Treasury as they have done under four licensing rounds under both Governments. The amount can be controlled easily and determined by the Department of Energy.
All the other arguments about control over participation revenue, and the separation of offshore oil revenues have not stood up to close examination. As the nation begins to grapple with the problem of bringing our inflated public expenditure under control, surely in this one area, this hypothecation of the oil account, Treasury restraint should be exercised and seen to be exercised. It is all very well for Ministers to put on 509 injured expressions of astonishment at the idea that the Corporation could ever possibly misuse the revenues in rash and uncontrolled ways. In a harassed moment earlier today, the Secretary of State admitted that it was envisaged that one of the two civil servants appointed to the Corporation would come from the Treasury. He gave as the reason that Treasury representation would be needed because of the vast amount of public money being handled by the Corporation. Surely that statement is the strongest possible support for the Lords amendment. It made clear to me the necessity for Treasury control of BNOC funds. I hope that the Government will therefore withdraw their opposition to the amendment. It is sensible and safe, and in our precarious financial state it is surely better to be safe than sorry.
§ Mr. John MooreIt is sad that when we come, at the end of a lengthy year's study of the Bill, to the key issue, the minority party benches are empty. That shows how only the two major parties contend in the realities of responsible politics.
The National Oil Account is something that we shall have cause to regret. I can imagine, 20 years from now, people saying, rather as they did 100 years after the foundation of the National Debt, "How can we control this colossus?" We are creating an out-of-control colossus. I am not concerned about individual Ministers but about the mechanisms of government which we are seeking to change, for the worse. Any Secretary of State in charge of a spending Department, whatever his political affiliation, will seek to enlarge his area of responsibility. It is irrelevant which side he sits—he will spend and spend and spend because that is the nature of the modern beast.
I am therefore interested in having spending Department heads meeting in Cabinet and competing for scarce resources—
§ Mr. John SmithThat is what will happen.
§ Mr. MooreAlthough I respect the Minister's sincerity, that is patent nonsense. There is no way to control the beast in modern society. My criticisms relate to Governments of both parties. It is clear from the comments of Wynne 510 Godley two days ago that no party in power, with present mechanisms, seems to be able to control modern spending Departments. So we are doing the last thing we should do—we are creating a Corporation with the right to go downstream and become the greatest petrochemical and petroleum giant in the nation—with hypothecated revenues.
The Minister of State says that the surplus will be shifted straight into the Exchequer. What surplus? How many hon. Members have heard about surpluses in discussion of expenditure of nationalised organisations? Is this a new weapon? There is no such thing. We know what surplus there will be.
Where are the Treasury Ministers and other spending Ministers today, when we are creating a situation in which scarce resources, marked down as revenue for the expenditure of the State, which could have been used for housing and health, are being committed to the expenditure patterns of the BNOC? That is the destructive nature of this form of hypothecation and this legislation. I hope that we can defeat this Government attempt to disagree with the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. RostI wish to raise only two points. By allowing the National Oil Account to siphon off these vast funds from the Treasury the Government will be aggravating their own problems, which will probably lead to their downfall. Cuts are having to be made today in vital areas of Government spending because the money just is not there. The British National Oil Corporation is given a top priority in spite of its irrelevance. It means that there will be more unemployment in the building industry, the social services and amongst teachers, simply in order that money can be saved to finance the extravagance of the BNOC. Additional cuts will have to be made to those already planned, in order to provide the finance which will be sucked up by this irrelevance.
My second point is related to the first. Because of the allocation of funds to the National Oil Account, other areas of higher priority for spending in the energy industries will be starved of finance. The Government have had time to study the report produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, dealing with 511 energy resources, and I declare an interest in having been a contributor to it. It is clear from the report that if, over the years ahead, we are to consider the alternative sources of energy when North Sea oil begins to run down, we must begin now with sensible energy conservation programmes. That means that we should not be having parliamentary replies which say that there is no money to finance thermal insulation or to develop wind, wave or tidal power. We cannot be told that the Government cannot afford to promote a more efficient use of our energy which will produce a positive return for the balance of payments and increase the efficiency of the economy.
Instead of allocating this money through the National Oil Account to the BNOC, for an irrelevant extension of State ownership, the money should be put to producing a positive return to the economy. The money will have to be spent in future years, anyway, and we could begin to make a start now to produce the return to society as a whole.
§ Mr. GrayI was surprised that the Under-Secretary was not a little more gracious in his initial remarks about the amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). The amendment was moved in a very temperate fashion, and I would have thought it headed towards the Government's point of view. It is surprising that the Minister should have taken such exception to it.
There is the question of control over the National Oil Account. The question of Treasury control was highlighted this afternoon, when the Secretary of State indicated that one of the civil servants to be appointed to the BNOC board would come from the Treasury. This is surely indicative of the Government's feeling that there should be a Treasury involvement in this matter.
My hon. Friend's amendment and the amendment made in another place both indicate the fear in everyone's mind about the whole question of spending by the BNOC and the fact that the National Oil Account will be under the control of the Secretary of State. There is no intention that when the account reaches a certain level a proportion of it will have to be 512 transferred to the Treasury. I believe that most people find that fact worrying. What is highlighted is the danger of the National Oil Account and the income of the BNOC rising without a proper check. Of course, I do not suggest that its activities will not be supervised by the Government, but if there were a need for money to be transferred to the Treasury, to the Consolidated Fund, at any given period, in our view it would be an extra check. What is to prevent an ambitious Secretary of State's indulging some of his wilder ideas in projects for the BNOC which business sense would indicate the BNOC should not embark upon?
8.45 p.m.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) were aggravated by criticisms of the Secretary of State. They accused my hon. Friends of being personal. I am sure that my hon. Friends did not mean to be personal. However, we must accept, as must every Minister, that our track records will follow us around. If one's track record indicates association with a number of not too successful ventures, one cannot be too annoyed if those ventures are, from time to time, referred to during debates. The right hon. Gentleman made no complaint. I am quite sure that he would be prepared to defend his actions. The fact remains that in the eyes of many people the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with a number of ventures which, to say the least, did not go too well.
§ Mr. BennI did not hear the comments, but I have never taken the view that any references are personal. They are attacks on the policy that is pursued. That is what I have always understood. Another reason why I should not be anxious is that the results of the various industrial ventures with which I have been concerned are as nothing compared with the outrageous transfer of our national resources to the oil companies during the 1972 round of licensing, which we are remedying in this legislation. I have nothing to be shy about. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) might be embarrassed if his track record were examined.
§ Mr. GrayI realise that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to stand up and defend himself. However, I remind him that it is his track record which is under surveillance, and not mine. I accept what 513 he says about his own activities, but I do not accept what he says about the 1972 round of licensing.
An important Scottish point comes into the whole question of the National Oil Account and the Treasury—namely, that the Scottish Development Agency, which we all hope will play an important part in Scotland, will be funded from the Treasury and not from the National Oil Account. Therefore, it is in the interests of those who have Scotland at heart—those who have Scotland at heart are present tonight—that Scotland should be protected in this way.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has arrived in time to defend himself. It is important that the Treasury should have access to as great an amount of the income as possible, and that it should not be left indefinitely in
§ the oil account, which is in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will agree with the recommendations of the other place concerning this issue.
§ Mr. RathboneMy hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and I have allowed right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the new spirit of conviviality which has crept into the debate, to take a sensible and reasonable step, if they support the amendment, without in any way having to eat their own words. I urge them to do so.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 239.
515| Division No. 386.] | AYES | [8.52 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank | Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Hooley, Frank |
| Anderson, Donald | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Horam, John |
| Archer, Peter | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Deakins, Eric | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) |
| Ashley, Jack | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Huckfield, Les |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Delargy, Hugh | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Dempsey, James | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Doig, Peter | Hunter, Adam |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Dormand, J. D. | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) |
| Bates, Alf | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) |
| Bean, R. E. | Dunn, James A. | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Dunnett, Jack | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Eadie, Alex | Janner, Greville |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Edge, Geoff | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Bishop, E. S. | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Jeger, Mrs Lena |
| Boardman, H. | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | John, Brynmor |
| Booth, Albert | English, Michael | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Ennals, David | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Evans, John (Newton) | Judd, Frank |
| Bradley, Tom | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Kaufman, Gerald |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Faulds, Andrew | Kelley, Richard |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Kerr, Russell |
| Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Buchan, Norman | Flannery, Martin | Kinnock, Neil |
| Buchanan, Richard | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lambie, David |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Lamborn, Harry |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Foot. Rt Hon Michael | Lamond, James |
| Campbell, Ian | Forrester, John | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Freeson, Reginald | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Cant, R. B. | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Lee, John |
| Carmichael, Neil | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Lever, Rt Hon Harold |
| Carter, Ray | George, Bruce | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Gilbert, Dr John | Lipton, Marcus |
| Cartwright, John | Ginsburg, David | Litterick, Tom |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Golding, John | Loyden, Eddie |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Gould, Bryan | Luard, Evan |
| Cohen, Stanley | Gourlay, Harry | Lyon, Alexander (York) |
| Coleman, Donald | Graham, Ted | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) |
| Conlan, Bernard | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Grant, John (Islington C) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Corbett, Robin | Grocott, Bruce | McElhone, Frank |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | MacFarquhar, Roderick |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Hardy, Peter | McGuire, Michael (Ince) |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Harper, Joseph | Mackenzie, Gregor |
| Cryer, Bob | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Hatton, Frank | Madden, Max |
| Davidson, Arthur | Hayman, Mrs. Helene | Magee, Bryan |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Heffer, Eric S. | Mahon, Simon |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) | Tierney, Sydney |
| Marks, Kenneth | Richardson, Miss Jo | Tinn, James |
| Marquand, David | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Tomlinson, John |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Tomney, Frank |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Torney, Tom |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Roderick, Caerwyn | Tuck, Raphael |
| Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Mendelson, John | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Mikardo. Ian | Rooker, J. W. | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Millan, Bruce | Roper, John | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Rose, Paul B. | Ward, Michael |
| Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Watkins, David |
| Moonman, Eric | Rowlands, Ted | Watkinson, John |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Sandelson, Neville | Weetch, Ken |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Sedgemore, Brian | Weitzman, David |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Moyle, Roland | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Shore, Rt Hon Peter | White, James (Pollok) |
| Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Newens, Stanley | Sillars, James | Whitlock, William |
| Noble, Mike | Skinner, Dennis | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Oakes, Gordon | Small, William | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian | Spearing, Nigel | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Orbach, Maurice | Spriggs, Leslie | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Ovenden, John | Stallard, A. W. | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Padley, Walter | Stoddart, David | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Palmer, Arthur | Stott, Roger | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Park, George | Strang, Gavin | Woodall, Alec |
| Parker, John | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. | Woof, Robert |
| Parry, Robert | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Peart, Rt Hon Fred | Swain, Thomas | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Pendry, Tom | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) | |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) | Mr. Thomas Cox. |
| Radice, Giles | ||
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Durant, Tony | Heath, Rt Hon Edward |
| Alison, Michael | Dykes, Hugh | Henderson, Douglas |
| Arnold, Tom | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Heseltine, Michael |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Elliott, Sir William | Hicks, Robert |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Emery, Peter | Higgins, Terence L. |
| Banks, Robert | Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Holland, Phillip |
| Beith, A. J. | Eyre, Reginald | Hooson, Emlyn |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Fairbairn, Nicholas | Howell, David (Guildford) |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Fairgrieve, Russell | Hunt, John |
| Benyon, W. | Farr, John | Hurd, Douglas |
| Biffen, John | Fell, Anthony | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Finsberg, Geoffrey | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Blaker, Peter | Fisher, Sir Nigel | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | James, David |
| Bottomley, Peter | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Fookes, Miss Janet | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Fox, Marcus | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Freud, Clement | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Brittan, Leon | Fry. Peter | Kimball, Marcus |
| Brotherton, Michael | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | King, Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Glyn, Dr Alan | Kitson, Sir Timothy |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Budgen, Nick | Goodhart, Philip | Knox, David |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Goodhew, Victor | Lamont, Norman |
| Burden, F. A. | Goodlad, Alastair | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Gorst, John | Latham, Michael (Melton) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Lawson, Nigel |
| Churchill, W. S. | Gray, Hamish | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Griffiths, Eldon | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Lloyd, Ian |
| Cockcroft, John | Grist, Ian | Loveridge, John |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Grylls, Michael | Luce, Richard |
| Cope, John | Hall, Sir John | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Cordle, John H. | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | MacCormick, Iain |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Corrie, John | Hampson, Dr Keith | MacGregor, John |
| Costain, A. P. | Hannam, John | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) |
| Crouch, David | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) |
| Crowder, F. P. | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Hastings, Stephen | Madel, David |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Havers, Sir Michael | Mates, Michael |
| Drayson, Burnaby | Hawkins, Paul | Mather, Carol |
| Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Raison, Timothy | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Mawby, Ray | Rathbone, Tim | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Stokes, John |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Reid, George | Tapsell, Peter |
| Mills, Peter | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Moate, Roger | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Monro, Hector | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Rifkind, Malcolm | Thompson, George |
| Moore, John (Croydon C) | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Trotter, Neville |
| Morgan, Geraint | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) | Viggers, Peter |
| Mudd, David | Sainsbury, Tim | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Neave, Airey | Scott, Nicholas | Wakeham, John |
| Nelson, Anthony | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Neubert, Michael | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Newton, Tony | Shelton, William (Streatham) | Watt, Hamish |
| Normanton, Tom | Shepherd, Colin | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Onslow, Cranley | Silvester, Fred | Wells, John |
| Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Sims, Roger | Welsh, Andrew |
| Osborn, John | Sinclair, Sir George | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Page, John (Harrow West) | Skeet, T. H. H. | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Pardoe, John | Speed, Keith | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Parkinson, Cecil | Spence, John | Wood, Rt Hon Richard |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Percival, Ian | Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester) | Younger, Hon George |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Sproat, Iain | |
| Price, David (Eastleigh) | Stainton, Keith | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Prior, Rt Hon James | Stanbrook, Ivor | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Stanley, John | Mr. Michael Roberts. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.