ENERGY CONSERVATION

HC Deb 21 October 1976 vol 917 cc1673-707

(1) For the purpose set out in subsection (2) below and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) below, the Secretary of State may make orders regulating or prohibiting the use of any substances mentioned in subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act or of electricity.

(2) The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom.

(3) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.

(4) When laying an order made under this section before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall also include a statement outlining what, in his opinion, will be the likely effect of the order and its economic justification.

(5) The Secreary of State shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of—

1. (a) research and development undertaken during that year by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to energy conservation, and any firm proposals for research and development of this kind in future years;
2. (b) action taken by the Secretary of State during that year to promote energy conservation by advertising campaigns and other educational activities and any firm proposals for further promotion of this kind in future years;
3. (c) progress made during that year both nationally and within the public sector towards greater efficiency in energy use and an assessment of the progress which the Secretary of State considers should be achieved in future years;
4. (d) orders in force under this section and the justification for the continuance of each of them'.—[Mr. Rost.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

With the new clause we are taking Government Amendment No. 1, in Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert: (1A) Orders under subsection (1) above regulating or prohibiting the use of any of the substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy. Subject to this, orders under the subsection may be made only when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force. (1B) When no Order in Council under section 3 is in force the Secretary of State shall before making an order under subsection (1) consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.' and the following amendments to Amendment No. 1:

Amendment (a), in subsection (1A), at end of first sentence, insert: 'to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom'.

Amendment (b), at end add: '(1C) When laying before Parliament an order made under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall also include a statement outlining what in his opinion will be the likely effect of the order and its economic justification'.

Amendment (c), at end add: '(1D) The Secretary of State shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of—

1. (a) research and development undertaken during that year by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to energy conservation and any firm proposals for research and development of this kind for future years;
2. (b) action taken by the Secretary of State during that year to promote energy conservation by advertising campaigns and other educational activities and any firm proposals for further promotion of this kind in future years;
3. (c) progress made during that year both nationally and within the public sector towards greater efficiency in energy use and an assessment of the progress which the Secretary of State considers should be achieved in future years; and
4. (d) orders in force under section 1(1)A of this Act and the justification for the continuation of each of them'.

Mr. Rost

In case the Government are surprised that the Opposition have tabled only one new clause to this important Bill, perhaps I should reassure them that it is not because we regard the legislation as so satisfactory that amendments and new clauses could not have been proposed, but simply because we wish to concentrate the attention of the House and the Government on what we regard as the most important inadequacy of this legislation. For this reason we feel it right to concentrate our attention on one new clause only, dealing with the need for greater priority for energy conservation.

The House will recall that in the Queen's Speech a year ago we were promised an Energy Bill that would deal with a policy for energy conservation. We were given an Energy Bill. We have it before us now, on Report. The Bill that we were promised, we were told in the Queen's Speech, would be introduced in order to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the international energy programme. The Bill deals with that very adequately.

We were told, secondly, that it would be introduced in order to control energy supplies during any shortage or emergency. Again, the legislation gives the Government more than adequate controls in that respect.

We were promised, thirdly, that the Bill would implement energy conservation policies. We have looked very hard at the Bill and we find that apart from one or two minor matters it is nothing more than a hotch-potch, dealing with the first and second objectives but with hardly anything on the third objective.

As if to add weight to that argument, the House may be amazed to know that the original Bill as presented to the House did not even mention conservation. At least, we have not found any mention of it in the Bill.

We believe that it is essential that the Government meet their obligations under the Loyal Address, and therefore we have tabled a new clause which we hope will concentrate greater emphasis on a strategy for energy conservation. We have tabled it because we do not believe that the Government have taken energy conservation seriously enough so far.

4.15 p.m.

We should make it clear that in the new clause we are not proposing to seek to give the Government powers for con- trols or restrictions. We believe that energy conservation can best be achieved not by legislation but by a sensible system of economic pricing, by the right sorts of incentives, by giving proper priorities to investment, by the removal of disincentives, and by cost-effective investment. These are the more important ways in which one can achieve energy conservation, rather than by the more negative restrictive approach through legislation.

We do not believe that by energy conservation we have to achieve a reduction in use. We are not suggesting that people should discomfort themselves in any way, or that the nation's productive effort should be in any way affected. Quite the contrary. Energy conservation really means a greater efficiency in the production and use of energy, which would effect savings in public expenditure and make it less necessary to invest public resources to meet extra demand, which will not be required if conservation reduces that demand or holds it down.

Our interpretation of energy conservation, as we have outlined it in the clause, is that greater priority should be given to conservation by reducing waste as a result of a more rational use of energy, rather than by restrictive legislation.

We believe it is desirable that we should have greater emphasis on energy conservation for, first, the shorter-term reason—the obvious one of the balance of payments. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as aware as anybody on the Government side of the desperate need for this country to do what it can to bridge some of the gap in the balance of payments. We know very well that any sensible improvement in the use of our energy will make a very substantial and short-term contribution to the balance of payments, either by relieving imports or by making more exports of energy available. One per cent. of energy saved in the current year in terms of cost represents well over £100 million.

When we bear in mind the desirability for energy conservation, the second most important consideration must be that the supply and use of energy now absorb nearly 15 per cent. of our gross domestic product—a figure that has been rising in recent years as the cost of energy has increased.

It is, therefore, far more important now and in future years that we get our energy factors right than it has been in the past. The whole competitive position of the country will be seriously jeopardised if our energy is not produced and used as efficiently as in other countries which are competing against us.

When the supply and use of energy represented a lower proportion of the gross national product, in previous years, when energy was cheap and more plentiful, this factor was not as important as it is now, or as it will become increasingly in future years.

The third reason why it is so desirable that we persuade the Government to give greater priority to energy conservation is for the longer term, and I regard this as the most important reason. I believe that a sensible longer-term policy for cutting out some of the wasteful uses and practices in energy consumption will buy time.

Anybody who attended, as I did, the Secretary of State's National Energy Conference, and who attempts to follow the advice of experts from all over the country, cannot fail to have noticed one fact that emerged from that conference. It was that no two experts appear to agree. Everybody differs. The people who ought to be in a position to advise the non-technical people such as ourselves—the politicians who are in the midst of the problem—still cannot agree about any forecasts of the likely demand for energy or the available resources for energy.

We do not know whether there will be an energy gap, or, if there is to be one when it will be. We do not know which of the longer-term options will be the right one in the field of nuclear power, or whether we should take the longer-term coal option. We do not know how soon alternative energy sources will become available, or at what cost.

We cannot, therefore, really say at this stage where our priorities should go. We cannot tell whether we should go now for the fast breeder reactor or develop advanced coal technology. We do not know when fusion will be available, or at what cost, or whether tidal or waste power, wind or solar power, will become alternative options, to what extent, or over what time scale.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that developments are moving so fast in this area that within the next five or 10 years we shall have the answers to a great many of these questions. For example, within that time we are bound to know more about the resources available to us on the Continental Shelf. We shall know by then some of the answers on the fast breeder reactor and on the alternative resources.

Therefore, a policy for energy conservation gives us the most valuable asset of all. It will buy time. It will allow us to phase in to the alternative options more easily over the long-term time scale and, therefore, allow us to make the vast investments that will be required, make them more cost-effective and get some of those options right rather than wrong. The argument, therefore, for buying time is so important that it justifies a certain change of priorities in Government strategy in order to avoid rushing in wrong directions and into the wrong decisions earlier than we would otherwise need to, at a huge cost in the long run.

Such a policy of energy conservation is not suggested as an alternative to the major suggestions that will have to be made in the longer term. Obviously, energy conservation, even allowing for the vast waste of resources that goes on at the moment, can make only a marginal contribution. But, over a longer term, it can make an increasingly important one. It will give us the better odds that we shall need desperately to get the longer-term decisions right and, by doing that, will save national capital resources not just of energy but of other resources in the long run and, of course, produce over the shorter term the substantial benefits that are obvious to us all.

For this reason, we propose a new clause which we hope will discipline the Government and the Department of Energy. Having referred to the Department, may I say how pleased we are to see the new Under-Secretary in his place? We know that he has taken a very close and enthusiastic interest in these matters. I am especially pleased to be making these remarks in his presence because I know that he will be very receptive to them.

As I said, the clause will discipline the Government and the Department to accept what so many experts and advisory bodies with differing and varying points of view are saying and have been saying in recent years. In the recent work that it has been doing, the Select Committee on Science and Technology has been saying this. Even Ministers have admitted that conservation is not simply a matter of spending a small amount on publicity but that it needs a longer-term strategy. It needs the coordination of Government Departments and it needs cost-effective investment. In other words, it needs a bit of stick and a great deal of carrot—not so many controls but a great deal of financial incentive.

Our clause asks the Government, first, to consult widely before making restrictive orders in what they imagine to be the interests of energy conservation, so that if regulations are to come from this Government we get some justification for them by having proper consultation first.

Secondly, we ask in the clause that the Government attempt to justify the effects of any measures that they introduce on economic grounds and on grounds of energy conservation. If I may give a specific example of what should be happening, in the interests of energy conservation the French returned to Summer Time far earlier than we did They assessed beforehand, by detailed work, that they would save a specific amount of energy, and they justified it on those grounds. If new measures like this are recommended by outside bodies, the Government should attempt to justify them to Parliament before implementing them.

But, even more important, our clause proposes the introduction of a completely new concept. It is the concept of an annual report to Parliament on the progress that the Government are making in energy conservation. Such an annual report, which would be subject to debate, would in my view be far more valuable than a series of arbitrary restrictive measures, controls or legislation. An annual report would give the Government an opportunity to state their case on a forward rolling programme and to justify that following a debate.

Perhaps I may briefly list some of the matters that I regard as suitable for inclusion in an annual report and, in doing so, justify the reasons of the Opposition for putting forward the new clause.

An annual report to Parliament should include an estimate of the annual demand, supply and cost of energy on the best figures available—in other words, an annual energy budget. This would also include estimated targets of percentage energy savings as a result of less wasteful practices.

Secondly, this report to Parliament should give progress on the estimated conservation benefits resulting from Government measures already introduced. We already have some regulations, and it is only right that the Government should attempt to justify the continuation of these various measures by putting before Parliament once a year a report giving the reasons for them and the contribution that they have already made. For example, we should have in such a report details of the progress that is being made nationally in thermal insulation for new and old buildings and public and private buildings. The Building Research Establishment report which came out a year ago gave a very strong lead on how this should be done over a long-term programme, and an annual report to Parliament would keep the Government on their toes by making them report on whether more incentives were needed and whether sufficient progress was being made.

Such a report to Parliament could indicate the progress being made in industry and in the nationalised industries to adopt more energy-saving processes, plant and investment. If no progress were being made, perhaps there would be an argument for looking at the various incentive schemes—the Government loan scheme and the investment allowance scheme—and seeing whether there were still too many disincentives which should be removed.

Such an annual report to Parliament should also include an assessment of the outside advice being received by the Government and what action the Government were taking on it—or not taking on it. We now have some excellent outside bodies, partly set up by the Department itself—the Advisory Council on Research and Development, the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, the Plowden Report on the electricity supply industry, and the recent Building Research Establishment report on the economic assessment of the utilisation of power station reject heat. These are the kinds of reports and recommendations which apparently are very valuable, but the Government might be tempted to ignore or neglect them unless they were prodded once a year to comment on why they were not acting on these various recommendations, including those of Parliament's own Select Committee on Energy Conservation. A report annually on the action being taken on the advice proffered by various outside bodies would be very valuable.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane (Sutton and Cheam)

My hon. Friend is making his point extremely lucidly, and it may be that his request is well substantiated in view of the oft-declared aim and desire of the Secretary of State for more open government. My hon. Friend's idea of an annual report appears to be endorsed by that attitude.

Mr. Rost

Indeed, and that is a matter that I shall touch upon in my concluding remarks. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I have been extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's comprehensive statement of what should be included in such a report, and I have considerable sympathy with the new clause, but, as a Back Bench Member, I already receive a great many reports, and I am hesitant about encouraging many others. If this report is to cover all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, is he satisfied that it can be done with the present information available and the existing staff, or will it entail a further expansion of the Department? We are all anxious to avoid that. What is more, does the hon. Gentleman feel that, having received this report, there is any chance of Parliament ever discussing it? If not, perhaps we could have an Energy Committee to discuss it. Finally, does the hon. Gentleman think that all the matters that he wants in this report will be sufficiently precise for it to be possible for the Government to quantify them annually?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Rost

The enlarged Department of Energy should be adequately equipped to provide such an annual report. We do not have much hope of its getting its policy right, anyway, if it is not capable of producing an annual report on what it is or is not doing. I also believe that Parliament is the right place for such an annual debate, rather than having it shunted upstairs to a Committee. The matter is now vital to our national economy. It is not an ancillary subject, but is fundamental to the country's future. Therefore, there is no reason for us to be hesitant in proposing our new clause.

The report should include information on research and development during the year and on future programmes. There has been a great deal of criticism that our energy research and development effort has not been directed as it should have been, and particularly that not enough of it has gone into energy conservation, as opposed to developing new sources of energy. For example, if we had allocated more fluidised bed combustion techniques we might now be making a bigger contribution to our energy resources and to using them less wastefully.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best illustrations of his point is the gross imbalance over recent years between the sum invesed in research and development for the nuclear industry and that for the benign sources of energy to which he has just referred?

Mr. Rost

That is exactly the point I was trying to make, but I am trying to be brief and therefore did not develop it.

The annual report would be all the more valuable if it included a reference to the pricing structure of energy and the energy industries, if it said whether the Government thought they had the balance right, in order to achieve the incentives required, and whether there was justification for modifications of energy tariffs, the car tax, and so on. These matters should be reviewed annually by Parliament in the context of an overall strategy for energy conservation rather than be the subject of arbitrary legislation and controls and regulations from time to time.

A further area that would be a valuable subject for an annual review is progress on removing the main restraints to the more sensible use of our energy. This subject includes the application of reject heat from our electricity supply generating system, the extension of district heating, and the removal of disincentives to industry and individuals to use energy more efficiently.

Finally, the annual report should compare the progress being made in this country and internationally. We are well aware that some countries, particularly the United States, are not making the progress that many of us feel they would like to make towards more efficient use of energy, but some European countries are making better progress than we are, particularly in the application of waste heat and direct fiscal incentives for energy conservation, including the use of insulation. An annual report on what was happening in the IEA and EEC would be a useful basis for sensible discussion.

To sum up, we see nothing in the clause that the Government could not find acceptable. In principle it goes no further than they have already gone in their declared objectives from time to time and in speeches by energy Ministers. What is new is the obligation to have an annual report and to air the matter in Parliament. If the national energy conference was a constructive innovation, as most people would probably agree, this should be even more constructive. The energy industries absorb a large proportion of the GNP and an important slice of investment resources, much of it now in the public sector. Therefore, it is the more important that Parliament should have a system of control, or at least an annual debate, in addition to the outside views and opinions expressed at annual energy conference, if that is what we are to have.

As the world economic balance has been so upset by the fivefold oil price increase, it has become even more vital to our economy that we get our energy strategy right and that we do more to invest in less wasteful production and consumption practices. As so many of the energy industries are now within the Government's area of decision-taking, rather than the private sector, it is justifi- able to have an annual review by Parliament. The days have passed when we had simply an annual report from each of the nationalised energy industries, and perhaps an energy White Paper every 10 years.

The occasional debate on a specific energy topic is not good enough now if Parliament is to take a constructive and sensible interest in this increasingly important aspect of our economy. Parliament should demand an annual report reviewing the Government's policy, strategy and forecasts, in order to scrutinise the Government's function in such a vital sector of the national economy, especially as the longer-term problems of supply and demand, and the various options that will have to be taken are not static but dynamic. They cannot be easily projected or planned, and therefore must be reviewed regularly.

Recent experience has emphasised that we have made mistakes in major areas of energy technology and investment. The nuclear strategy has proved that. I hope that the Government will accept the clause as a reasonable and constructive contribution by the Opposition to improving the function of Parliament, the process of monitoring. The long-term decisions in energy matters are now too vital to continue to be relegated to the low priority that they have had in the Parliamentary timetable. I know that the Secretary of State and the new Under-Secretary will accept that, because they understand. There is much justification for the hon. Gentleman's welcoming the clause. I hope that it will have not only his backing but the backing of both sides of the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) for his kind words about my appointment to the Department of Energy. The hon. Gentleman and I were for a number of years colleagues on the Select Committee on Science and Technology and we worked closely together on many of the subjects to which he has referred. I hope that I shall be able to convince him that in my new post I now hope to put into effect some of the things I said in those days.

The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time talking about conservation policy, and it is perhaps appropriate that I should be the Minister chosen to reply on that topic because conservation policy is one of my principal responsibilities in the Department. We agree about the importance of conservation policy. In terms of long-term strategy, we look to our coal reserves, the nuclear industry and conservation policy as playing equal parts in our consideration. I wish to underline that it now costs the United Kingdom £12 million a day to import oil. If we bear that figure in mind every day of our lives in the way we use energy, it should bring home to us the importance of conservation.

The Labour Government have a good record on this score. In December 1974 the then Secretary of State for Energy set out the guidelines for the Government's conservation policy. In July of this year the Government published a White Paper in response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and I were members. Therefore, nobody can say that the Government have been slow to recognise the importance of conservation policy or to respond to the situation or to the comments of the Select Committee.

In addition, we have made sure that energy is now economically priced for consumers, and part of our policy is aimed at the provision of advice and information to consumers. On Tuesday of this week I launched a film for use in British industry dealing with energy auditing. We have received a tremendous number of inquiries in response to our "Save It" campaign. The next round of our advice to industry will be based on the need for those in industry to recognise the importance of quantifying the use of energy so that industry may know exactly how much is being used—why, where and for what purposes—and how much energy per unit of output is necessary industrially. That is in the forefront of our minds. The next phase of our campaign will be aimed in that direction.

4.45 p.m.

As a good example of our conservation effort, the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment has taken major strides in reacting to the situation in terms of Government property and estates. We have introduced optimum start control systems and within a year of their installation there has been a great increase in the amount of energy saving. Therefore, the Government are practising what they preach.

I am the chairman of an interdepartmental committee of Ministers representing Government Departments, and we shall discuss how to co-ordinate our efforts in the Government and in the various agencies for which we are responsible. I think that the Government's example is a good one. Further, we have taken steps in research and development monitoring and in guiding energy conservation research. We are setting the standards and, indeed, are encouraging the British Standards Institution and other bodies to develop conservation standards. Voluntary codes are being worked out, and we believe that we must devote even more attention to these matters than has been directed to them in the past. I am not saying that my predecessors were lax, but I suggest that in conservation terms we now have before us tremendous opportunities. I believe that we have faced the problem in the last two years, but there are still many areas that can be fruitfully explored.

The Government have been active in promoting the work of the Energy Conservation Unit of my Department and of our Energy Information Division. We wish to make clear our determination to pursue energy conservation. Furthermore, we have an Energy Technology Division engaged in examining the more efficient use of energy. As the Minister responsible for the British gas industry, I have since my appointment visited the Midlands and have seen the research station at Solihull and also the establishment at Watson House in London. I am impressed with the research put by British Gas into new ideas for more efficient use of that product as a fuel and for the conservation of gas used in industry, commerce and domestically.

I wish to refer to the work of bodies such as ACEC, the Advisory Council for Energy Conservation, under the chairmanship of Sir William Hawthorne, and also to the activities of ACORD, the Advisory Council on Research and Development. Therefore, we are very much committed to energy conservation.

I do not remember very much about the policy of conservation under the Conservative Government. I remember the Minister responsible at the time commenting on the efficacy of brushing one's teeth in the dark. I believe that during the time that we have been in office we have shown a fundamental concern for energy conservation.

Let me turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. He mentioned the need for a report about energy conservation. The Department of Energy issued a report on that subject and it is available to the House. If the hon. Gentleman believes that this area of activity can be improved, we shall re-examine the matter. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that hon. Members—and certainly Ministers and officials—are submerged under official documents and reports. I do not accept the idea that by having another conservation report we shall make a radical alteration in the situation. However, I give the assurance that I shall examine the position.

Mr. Rost

Would the Minister accept that the main purpose of introducing the obligation to present an annual report to Parliament would be to place an obligation upon the Government to hold an annual debate?

Dr. Cunningham

I do not think it would. We have just been hearing the Home Secretary saying how impossible it has been to find time for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman and I know how difficult it has been for some of the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to be debated in the House. There is no reason why energy conservation policies should not be debated in the House, whether on an Opposition Supply Day, by means of Private Members' motions or on occasions like this. I welcome any proposals from the Opposition aimed at improving our approach to conservation policy.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) referred to our expenditure on energy research and development. As they will both know, historically it is true that a large amount of this expenditure has been devoted to our thermal reactor programme and to nuclear fission generally. They will also know that our thermal and fast reactor programmes are currently under review. We have been giving increasing amounts of money for research into the so-called benign sources of energy and renewable resources. These things are important. We are keeping an eye on that area of expenditure. I remind hon. Members that at the same time we are being pressed to conserve and reduce public expenditure. We do not have unlimited resources.

Turning to the new clause, the House will recall that amendments of this kind have been moved during the various stages of the Bill. In general, the Government have resisted them. Included in some of the new clauses that have been brought forward were provisions which we have been glad to accept in some way or other and incorporate by way of Government amendment. One example is the provision that permanent powers should be exercisable for energy conservation purposes only. That is a provision which is now in the Bill.

The first effect of the new clause would be to take the energy conservation provisions out of Clause 3 and put them into a new clause. We are prepared to go some way with this idea. We are proposing an amendment, which I shall be moving later, which partly covers this. We proposed in Committee an amendment to move these provisions out of Clause 3 and into Clause 1. We believed that this was the most sensible way of meeting the wish expressed earlier that the conservation powers should not be in close juxtaposition to emergency provisions, as they are at present. We still believe that that is so and that the right place for conservation powers is in Clause 1.

The new clause also seeks to require that conservation powers should be exercised only when the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom is involved. I do not think that any Government needs legislation to tell them to act in the interests of the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. Certainly this Government do not. We do not see any need for that provision to be written into the Bill. The consultation procedures built in and the normal parliamentary procedures seem to allow fully for the expression of views and for Government decisions to be subject to parliamentary vote. There will be no lack of opportunity for a judgment on the national interest to be expressed. If there was such a lack, I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Tory Members would not be sitting where they are at the moment.

Mr. Macfarlane

The definition of the word "conservation" is difficult. For the past five minutes I have listened with approval to the long list that the Minister has read out. It has basically been based upon the "Save It" campaign over the past two years. What my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) was propounding was that there was a requirement for the Government to assess the nation's resources over the next few years.

Dr. Cunningham

I take the point. The list was not wholly in connection with the "Save It" campaign. I spoke a little about the more efficient use of the resources that we have. That is important in the longer term. I agree that we need to assess our resources, particularly fossil fuels, and ensure that we conserve them in the best interests not only of this generation but of future generations.

Mr. Macfarlane

That is real conservation.

Dr. Cunningham

I agree. We must also ensure that we get the maximum economic return for this country from our reserves. It is often said that we should not leave problems from the nuclear industry for our children and grandchildren. What greater problem could there be than to leave them without any fossil fuel reserves at all?

The House will see that the new clause goes on to quote from the present provisions of the Bill and then to seek a statement, with any order, of likely effects and economic justification. We have already said that we shall make known our best assessment of effects and our judgment on economic benefits. If reasonably precise figures can be given, we shall give them. It is not in our interests not to give this information. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has said, it is often not possible to give precise figures, and to do so might well unwittingly mislead. We do not want to be tied down, but where possible we shall give this information.

The next point concerns the reason for not needing a provision in the Bill to make a formal legal requirement of some of the points the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred to when he talked about annual reports. There is a section in the annual report dealing with conservation, and this is available to the House. The trouble with annual reports is that they proliferate. We do not want yet another annual report. We would broadly agree, at least I hope so, with the main purpose of the new clause, or what seems to be its main purpose—which the Government are to a large extent already achieving. Later I shall be moving Amendment No. 1, which deals with the same issue. I hope, therefore, that the new clause will be withdrawn and that the House will agree to Amendment No. 1.

The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to transfer the energy conservation provisions from Clause 3 to Clause 1. In earlier debates there was criticism suggesting that the conservation provisions should be taken out. This would leave Clause 3 to deal solely with the provisions for triggering the emergency provisions in the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

In an effort to meet the hon. Members' wishes—I hope that this will be acknowledged—the Government endeavoured in Committee, though unsuccessfully, to carry an amendment with a purpose similar to the proposal we now put to the House. Our present amendment retains the qualifications already agreed with regard to consultation with any organisation likely to be affected by an energy conservation order. I hope the House will agree that this transplanting of the energy conservation provision from Clause 3 to Clause 1 will help to clarify the purpose and effect of the provision. I recommend, therefore, that our amendment be accepted.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

From a study of the Government amendment, it appears that in a non-emergency situation the Secretary of State—presumably the Secretary of State for Energy—would have certain powers in relation to regulating and prohibiting the use of substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, and thereafter there is provision for consultation.

I take it that the Under-Secretary is aware that the Department of Energy has no authority or control—and, I hope, no influence either—over the Scottish electricity boards, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In connection with the prior consultations before an order is made on the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, may we have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will conduct those consultations within Scotland and that the advice forthcoming will be listened to before any action is taken?

Dr. Cunningham

Yes, I can give that assurance. Obviously, we have taken up this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am confident that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be taken care of.

I come now to the Opposition Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to our Amendment No. 1. In view of the recommendation which I have given, I trust that the House will accept our Amendment No. 1 and not wish to proceed with the amendments to it.

As we understand it, Amendment (a) would require that the conservation powers should be exercised only when they were to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom". As I said earlier, there is no need for legislation to remind any Government to act in the nation's economic interests, and we see no purpose in having that written into the Bill.

It appears that Amendment (b) would impose a requirement that any order should include a statement of its likely effect and economic justification. Here again, I have already stated that we should do our best to make clear our assessments of the effect and our judgment on the economic benefits. Moreover, if reasonably precise facts and calculations can be made available, we shall be glad to disclose them. I suggest, therefore, that the House need not proceed with that amendment.

Amendment (c) calls again for the annual report to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred when moving New Clause 1. I have already dealt with that at sufficient length, I think, and I urge the House to accept our Amendment No. 1 as it stands, rejecting the new clause and Amendments (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)

At the outset, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on his new position, and say how pleasant it is to hear him deploy his case with such urbanity and lucidity.

I wish to raise a very limited aspect of Clause 1(1), and, since it is so limited, my speech will be brief. The Bill is primarily concerned with conservation. Under Clause 1, the Secretary of State will have power to regulate the production of solid fuel, and, as I have, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), the distinction of representing the South Derbyshire and Leicestershire miners, I feel that I should draw to the attention of the House a matter that is exercising them at present. Although it does not fall strictly within the confines of conservation, it nevertheless forms an important part peripherally.

I refer to the question of the retirement age for miners. Without doubt, any measures that the Government take for conservation will be utterly fruitless in relation to solid fuel unless they have the good will of the miners. Therefore, any order that the Secretary of State may make regulating production should take into account the possibility, or probability, of an earlier retirement age for miners.

In Germany, after 25 years in the pits, miners retire at the age of 60. In France, if they have 30 years' service in the pits, they retire at the age of 50. In Belgium the retirement age is 55. In Holland also it is 55. In Spain, hardly a very liberal country, miners retire at 60. In the Soviet Union the retirement age is 50, and in the United States it is 55.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the deployment of his argument, but I find it difficult to understand how the retirement age of miners can be considered in connection with New Clause 1. It seems to me, with respect, that the subject matter of the clause does not allow of it.

Mr. Cronin

I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I may point out that Clause 1 (1) relates specifically to the regulating of production, and I should have thought that orders requiring that production be not made by miners over a certain age would be closely relevant to the clause. May I endeavour to dispose of the matter in a few more sentences? I hope that I shall not try your patience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If it is just a few more words, the Chair will be indulgent, but not otherwise.

Dr. John A. Cunningham

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and I congratulate him on his ingenuity in introducing the subject in this debate. Perhaps I can help him in a small way by saying that although we do not think that this is a matter for the present Bill the Government are generally seized, if that be the right word, of the views of the National Union of Mineworkers and his constituents. Although it is, perhaps, novel to suggest for conservation purposes that, if miners retire at age 60, coal will be conserved, I remind my hon. Friend that the Plan for Coal actually envisages an increase in output from the mines.

Mr. Cronin

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, though I am sorry that he did not say anything about the Government's plans. Perhaps I may briefly terminate what I have to say by pointing out that miners in Britain are treated in a uniquely bad way in terms of their retirement age, compared with miners in other countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am glad that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides agree. I shall be grateful, therefore, if Ministers will draw my views, which obviously have the backing of the whole House, to the attention of the Secretary of State and see what steps can be taken to ensure that miners retire at a much earlier age than they do at present, or at least ensure that some progress is made in that direction.

Mr. Forman

I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on his excellent speech moving the new clause and to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on his new appointment as Under-Secretary of State.

I wish to reaffirm some of the points so ably elaborated by my hon. Friend and to give one or two illustrations showing why I regard it as important for the House to accept the new clause. As the Under-Secretary of State said, energy conservation is vital to our long-term overall energy strategy and our whole energy equation.

The only thing which disappointed me in the Minister's remarks was the fact that he did not seem to give sufficient weight in his review to the aspect of benign sources of energy in the future. Looking at the overall equation in years to come, a great deal more needs to be done on the research and development side for energy from benign sources. The differential between the money spent each year on R and D for energy from benign sources and that spent on nuclear energy is something of the order of the ratio of 1 to 10 and possibly even greater. We need a better balance in this R and D effort.

We could have quicker results by acting on the energy demand and conservation side rather than on the side of energy supply. This is particularly obvious when looking at the long lead times which affect nuclear power, and the Selby coalfield. Conservation obviously has a quick acting and useful part to play. It gives us a better chance of flexibility which we may need to cope with future political threats from OPEC countries or anywhere else.

I was very impressed by the figure which the Minister gave of the cost to our balance of payments of £12 million a day to import oil. If we needed another argument here, it is the financial argument. The balance of payments consideration is very important, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East said, it is a factor of which we should all take account, particularly in view of the disastrous deficits we have been running up in recent years.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

The figure of £12 million a day may well be greatly increased shortly if the OPEC countries carry out their threat to increase oil prices by 15 to 20 per cent. This seems to have been ignored in the projections of this country's economy.

Mr. Forman

Yes, that is so. According to the best estimate I have been able to get, a 1 per cent, reduction of total energy consumption would bring in £100 million savings on the balance of payments.

Perhaps the most important and philosophical aspect of conservation is that it is consistent with our needs. Now that we are a relatively poor nation we must cut out waste in all forms and must not continue on the primrose path of 30 per cent. efficient power stations and vast new council estates with electric heating and insufficient insulation. These are the kind of decisions which were taken before the party was over, so to speak, and they are the sort of decisions we can no longer afford.

There are some points which we must bear in mind on the other side of the argument, too. We cannot afford to damage our international competitive position by overdoing the conservation argument. All we, on this side of the House, are asking for is a more rational and less wasteful use of the energy in circulation.

Equally the Government must not use conservation as a sort of fig-leaf to hide other sinister motives to extend their own form of doctrinal control over new sectors of industry.

This is a strong argument against the particular form of this Bill because it is, after all, a bit of a dog's breakfast. It would have helped the House considerably if we had had a clear conservation Bill.

We must see energy costs in a realistic light as a proportion of total costs and bear in mind the fact that price movements are often a far more effective way of ensuring conservation than any exhortations from Government departments.

An estimated 7.5 per cent. drop in energy consumption was recorded between 1973 and 1975. Five per cent. of this was due to recession, and 2.5 per cent. to higher prices. Therefore, conservation has a part to play, but it needs to be seen in perspective.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

I intervene briefly to commend the need for further attention to energy saving, and particularly to co-ordination between various Government Departments. I am not sure, in looking at the Bill as it is at present, that sufficient attention is being paid to co-ordination. There is a limit to what one Department of State can do in the effort to cut down the consumption of energy.

Take, for example, the job creation scheme for the insulation of roofs of houses. This was one of the most imaginative schemes which has been produced, and I commend the Government for it. Unfortunately, however, the scheme was marred very severely by the fact that very few funds are being made available, either by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Secretary of State for the Environment, to local authorities to enable them to take up the part of the scheme that was laid upon them to create new jobs, improve housing stock and save energy.

I hope that the Government will consider making more funds available. The Under-Secretary appears to be making some remarks in my direction but I am not sure what he is saying—

Dr. John Cunningham

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the funds made available under the job creation project of the Manpower Services Commission, surely he must realise that recently we announced that £17 million was being made available for work of this kind. We are very keen to see local authorities pursue these schemes because between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of all local authority houses have no roof insulation and it will conserve a lot of energy if this is installed.

Mr. Wilson

I am glad to hear that that is so. When I put down Parliamentary Questions on this matter earlier this month that information had not filtered through. The burden was being placed on local authorities, which are supposed to be cutting expenditure, and they were unable to contribute to their part of the scheme in the way we had hoped—because, as I said before, this is a very worthwhile scheme.

The point remains, is there sufficient in this Bill to take care of the problem of co-ordination and to make sure that one Department of State does not trip up another when it produces a good idea?

Mr. Trevor Skeet (Bedford)

I would like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Under-Secretary on his appointment, but while I congratulate him I cannot possibly accept his new amendment.

We have no objection to end-use controls in a genuine emergency. This is not the first time we have seen this Government amendment. It was debated in Committee, where it was rejected, and it is only due to the Government's obstinacy that it appears on the Order Paper today. The Minister of State was apparently not convinced by 56 columns of Hansard when we finally concluded that this amendment was not on, and the Government should drop the proposal.

It has been the policy of the Opposition to separate the permanent and emergency powers. In Clause 3 they are inexplicably mixed. The Minister seeks to transfer them to Clause 1, so that we have the same defect being preserved. Of course, it is a question of presentation. In the whole debate in Committee the Minister of State made no reference to the permanent powers and he dispensed with the whole matter in less than four minutes. He was hoping that that would escape the vigilance of the Opposition, but it is there for all to read.

Under the amendment, orders under Clause 1 regulating or prohibiting the use of any fuel may be made at any time—that is, not merely at a time of emergency but in normal conditions as well. The purpose for that, which was explained in a very convincing argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), was to precipitate out the permanent from the emergency powers. I should have thought that that would commend itself to the Government. Members of Parliament would be able to make a judgment of their own on the basis of the annual report and thereby participate in the decision-making process. I always thought that the Secretary of State was in favour of open government. Now I have my reservations.

Once the legislative precedent is established for control in normal times of the use of any fuel there will be no limit to the use of this device in other industries which have no relationship to energy. In future statutes its application to metals, building materials, and so on, would be only a matter of time. Due to the mixture of emergency powers and normal powers in Clause 1, substantial difficulties will be experienced under Schedule 2 and the provisions for obtaining information. Although there may be a case for gaining access to premises without a warrant during a period of national exigency, there can be no justification for that in normal times.

I have thought for a considerable time that the provision of permanent powers for the regulation of energy is probably to feed the Socialist lust for planning national resources. The Secretary of State told the House of Commons in 1973 that the 1973 Act would give him the powers to fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use".—[Official Report, 26th November 1973; Vol. 865, c. 141.] That has never been denied. In fact, it was acknowledged by the Under-Secretary.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon)

Will the hon. Member continue the quotation for three or four more sentences?

Mr. Skeet

I do not think that I need do that. I must economise in time. The further comments do not detract from the points that I have already made.

Let us take the case a step further and consult the Secretary of State's political advisers at the Department—Frances Morrell and Francis Cripps. They say: It has been seen that a planned energy policy would involve deciding which fuel should be used, and by whom, and how they should be used, just as much as deciding how the supply industry should develop". Later they go on: Planned development of sources of primary fuel supply would conflict with the traditional policy of free market decisions on energy use". That is, after all, the philosophy of the Government, and it is not surprising that the Under-Secretary should not mention anything about permanent powers today.

However the fact was brought out by Sir Arthur Hawkins in the Financial Times on 23rd June 1976 when he outlined the absurdity of ministerial direction. He said: We have been used as pawns in the power game in order to tie up the loose ends of the country's energy economy. The Board had been pressurised into taking expensive fuel that nobody else wanted. When coal was cheap they were required to burn dearer oil, and when oil became cheaper take high cost coal. It is not surprising that the National Council of Building Materials Producers has written to me on behalf of the National Federation of Clay Industries. In the letter dated 19th October it says: We need an assurance that energy conservation powers will not be used to compel an industry to change its fuelling policy. Should any change be necessary it should be subject to a positive vote and should have a lead-in period of six months. The letter goes on to deal with the possibility of compensation being paid. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that point.

The Minister should say whether conservation is to be put before technology. Are there to be fewer nuclear power stations and more coal-fired plants, even though the former may make a better use of national resources than the latter, and the fast breeder reactor is the most efficient vehicle for using Britain's growing stocks of plutonium? Is coal to be used to conserve oil when it would be cheaper probably to develop the North Sea oil potential than Selby coal, and would have a much smaller environmental impact?

The CEGB's selection of fuels is anathema to the Government, who wish to take away the competitive forces inherent in the Board's position. In response to its customers the Board rightly insists that it should secure the right to elect how much coal and oil it burns, depending on the price range of fuels available. The powers sought by the Government would divest the Board of that right.

Diminished use of power station fuel oil—with consumption reduced at the Government's behest has caused the market to be saturated with the product. If the Board will not burn it, who will? The consequence is that refining patterns have become disturbed and the oil companies have been required to invest heavily to restore the refinery balance, that is, between refinery yield and product demand, which has swung in favour of more light products—gasolenes and naphtha—at the expense of heavy fuel oils. Is this the best use of our national resources? How much more direction is likely to occur if the House accepts the amendment?

The best control for conservation purposes is by the price mechanism, not by direction. This was conceded by the Minister of State when he said that petrol consumption was likely to fall by 3 per cent. if the price increased by 10p per gallon. After all, the fiscal control of petroleum is tax, and the tax payable by the public is about 50 per cent. Perhaps the Minister of State will consider this point. There is an integrated European market in petroleum products. Has the clause been clandestinely designed to thwart British oil exports to Europe?

Dr. John A. Cunningham

It is already happening.

Mr. Skeet

If it is already happening, it is in conflict with Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome, which is part of the fair trading clause.

Dr. John A. Cunningham

What I said, and what the hon. Member knows that I meant, was that exports of oil are already taking place from this country.

Mr. Skeet

I am delighted to hear that. I thought that was common knowledge, but will these directions be used for the purpose I have described if and when they become law?

The Under-Secretary said that he was not prepared to accept Amendment (a) to provide that conservation should be used for the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. He said that that was perfectly obvious. But in the use of the powers that he is claiming, the onus is on him to show that he has acted intra vires. But he has not stated any of the parameters open to him. Why not issue a list of the criteria for the guidance of the public and private sectors of industry saying which powers will be used in which circumstances? Already we have indicated one of the criteria that could be applicable. So far the Secretary of State has indicated none. May I suggest one or two subsidiary points which could be included? I refer, first, to circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that intervention would lead to an energy saving which is susceptible of clear evaluation, and where it is intended that lower-grade energy use is required in preference to a higher-grade energy source. On this basis the Secretary of State should never use the powers contained in this clause to curtail the feed stock of the petro-chemical industry due to the added-value elements.

5.30 p.m.

Secondly, there is the case where an indigenous energy source is preferred and is nationally supportable over a foreign fuel, providing that the foreign exchange savings are not unreasonably counterbalanced by increased costs of the energy source and the balance of payments of the United Kingdom at the time warrants such intervention. To conserve energy, but to waste financial sources in doing so, would be ludicrous.

Of the various factors involved, conservation should constitute the major part of the justification, and intervention should not be urged if the regulatory use of the fuel involved would lead to a disproportionate cost compared with the available supply, the infraction of negotiated contracts and for esoteric reasons.

A more careful definition of conservation would concentrate the Secretary of State's mind, exert a beneficial discipline upon him and his advisers and, coupled with effective parliamentary scrutiny, avoid any abuse of unfettered discretion.

There is obviously a constitutional point here. The Government are proposing that ministerial reasoning should replace the exercise of judicial interpretation and it is obviously intended that the text of Clause 1 should be construed by the Executive and not by the courts. This is a classic case of drawing the terms of the law to enhance the powers of the Executive at the expense of the judiciary.

This must be so, as there is not enshrined in the clause any vestige of appeal against the use, even the unreasonable use, of ministerial discretion. Is it the intention of the Minister to issue regulations under the clause elaborating the criteria upon which the Secretary of State will exercise his powers on a permanent basis outside a national emergency?

It will be recollected that while wide powers were contained in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, they were susceptible to annual review. This is not the case in this Bill, and Parliament's control over ministerial use under Clause 1 is regrettably less effective.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) talked about the possibility of additional staff being required in order to monitor the new clause. The right hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber, but he will be able to read my remarks in Hansard. Where there is a question of powers being taken by the Government and which may be vested in a Minister, there must be parliamentary scrutiny and the ony way in which this can be exercised is through this House. We suggest that there should be an annual review and an annual report which could be made available for everyone in the Vote Office and which could be debated.

The best way of regulating use in the interests of conservation is to permit market forces to operate. Previous planning decisions of the Government in a number of fields provide sorrowful monuments to the mistaken judgment of Ministers. I was reading recently the Sixth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which the Secretary of State is censored because of substantial sums—about £10 million in all—being granted to three worker co-operatives. The Committee recognised this to be an error.

There is no doubt about the paucity of wisdom of civil servants compared with that exercised by staff daily engaged in business facing the spectrum of problems in a particular industry.

Current trends and abuses may be corrected by fiscal methods by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time. Taxation has the advantage that it applies indiscriminately to users. The difficulty with regulations is that they can be manipulated by Ministers for doctrinal reasons—for example, to support the BNOC, to upset the profitability of existing investments, to disturb refinery balance or to lead to uncompensatable breaches of existing contracts. They may also, by distorting the market produce a statistical picture that is both inaccurate and misleading.

After years of experience of controls of the type that the Government are now proposing to introduce, Mr. Garvin, the Chairman of Exxon, was reported in the Financial Times of 19th October as saying that higher prices and possibly additional taxes, too, might have to be imposed on United States consumers in order to make the country more energy conservation-minded. The report continued: He added that Government controls on natural gas and petroleum products are clearly counter-productive in achieving energy conservation. These are the words of the chairman of the biggest oil company in the world. I should have thought that they would be borne in mind, so that we avoid making the same mistakes in this country. As I said in Committee, inducement, guidance and education provide a saner approach in the fuel market and more efficacious than ministerial direction, especially when coupled with the operation of the market and by application of taxes at any time.

The Minister said nothing about permanent powers of use control.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

That is the next debate.

Mr. Skeet

If that is the Minister of State's knowledge of this Bill, I am surprised. Let him look at the wording of the amendment. It is quite clear, and refers to permanent end-use control. Our next debate will be on permanent powers of pricing petroleum products.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

If that is so, why is the hon. Gentleman making a speech that covers both subjects? Why not separate them neatly?

Mr. Skeet

It is for the discretion of Mr. Speaker to divide the amendments. I am speaking to elicit from the Government their intentions. We have no objection to price controls in a national emergency, but permanent end-use controls can be used to dictate what fuels should be used by, for instance, the CEGB.

The Minister of State appears not to have read his own Bill. The amendment says that the right to prohibit or regulate may be used at all times. That means permanent controls. The public may be astute enough to realise what the Minister apparently fails to understand and will see the dangers that I have been canvassing.

The interaction of end-use orders, taxes on fuels, permanent price controls and planning agreements for particular industries will be detrimental to the per- formance of the private sector and of no ultimate benefit to the Government.

The Government arrogantly expect that they can step into the market place and formulate the right decisions, but many mistakes have been made by Ministers in this House. I have referred to the Secretary of State's being censured by Select Committee and other well known cases come to mind.

The splitting of steel strip mills between Wales and Scotland is now regarded as a mistake, and the provision of aluminium smelters has led to problems which the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1976 has been called upon to deal with. It has also been recognised that a great mistake was made in the provision of State facilities for petroleum production platforms.

The provision of permanent end-use controls is obviously designed to interfere with the flow of natural gas and petroleum products to our Common Market partners. This is contrary to the fair trading provisions of the Rome Treaty. This will become particularly acute since the Commission has had to revise its objectives for reducing imported oil to 50 per cent., and targets are unlikely to be realised.

Further, if the energy-rich nations such as the United Kingdom seek to deprive the energy-deprived nations or our partners in the Common Market of their oil requirements, the chances of securing a minimum safeguard price, which is what the Government are after, will be frustrated by both the French and the Italians.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

Will the hon. Gentleman care to say what benefit this sort of bottom or plateau price will have when the OPEC countries are girding their loins for a fairly substantial increase in world prices?

Mr. Skeet

I am delighted to have that question, but I do not propose to deal with it today.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

Well done.

Mr. Skeet

The Minister of State says "Well done", but it was his Government who were after a floor price of seven dollars a barrel. I am against the floor price, whereas the Government are anxious to have it. It seems that there is a division in the Government. Apparently the Minister of State is against the floor price and the Prime Minister is in favour of it. It is hard to find out exactly what they stand for in these matters. I invite my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment and for the new clause.

Mr. Rost

The Under-Secretary of State has asked us to withdraw the new clause. I have always had a high respect for the hon. Gentleman because I have worked with him on the Select Committee on Science and Technology on energy matters, but that respect will not last much longer if he is to make such statements with a pained face. If ever there was one, he is a poacher turned gamekeeper. It is not good enough for him to have spent his career in Parliament

attacking Governments for not being open enough on energy matters and now to propose that a reasonable clause that asks for an annual report to be put before Parliament should not be accepted.

In our view, this legislation without the new clause could not possibly give conservation the proper status that I thought the Government themselves were intending it to include. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 154.

Division No. 338.]	AYES	15.43 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Newton, Tony
Atkins, Fit Hon H. (Spelttiorne)	Hampson, Dr Keith	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Awdry, Daniel	Hannam, John	Pattie, Geoffrey
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Percival, Ian
Baker, Kenneth	Hastings, Stephen	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Benyon, W.	Havers, Sir Michael	Prior, Rt Hon James
Biffen, John	Henderson, Douglas	Raison, Timothy
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Holland, Philip	Rathbone, Tim
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Hordern, Peter	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Bralne, Sir Bernard	Hunt, David (Wirral)	Ridsdale, Julian
Brittan, Leon	Hurd, Douglas	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	James, David	Salnsbury, Tim
Buck, Antony	Kershaw, Anthony	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Budgen, Nick	Kimball, Marcus	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Carlisle, Mark	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Churchill, W. S.	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Speed, Keith
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Kirk, Sir Peter	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Clegg, Walter	Knight, Mrs Jill	Sproat, lain
Cockcroft, John	Le Marchant, Spencer	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Cope, John	Lloyd, Ian	Stokes, John
Cordle, John H.	Loveridge, John	Stradling Thomas, J.
Corrie, John	Luce, Richard	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Costain, A. P.	MacCormlck, Iain	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Crouch, David	McCrindle, Robert	Temple-Morris, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Macfarlane, Neil	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	MacGregor, John	Thompson, George
Emery, Peter	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Eyre, Reginald	Mather, Carol	Viggers, Peter
Falrbairn, Nicholas	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Wakeham, John
Fell, Anthony	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Walters, Dennis
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Mills, Peter	Warren, Kenneth
Fookes, Miss Janet	Miscampbell, Norman	Watt, Hamish
Forman, Nigel	Moats, Roger	Weatherill, Bernard
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C 'f' d)	Molyneaux, James	Wilson. Gordon (Dundee E)
Gorst, John	Monro, Hector	Younger, Hon George
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Montgomery, Fergus
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gray, Hamlsh	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Mr. Cecil Parkinson and
Grist, Ian	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Mr. Anthony Berry.
Hall, Sir John	Neubert, Michael
NOES
Anderson, Donald	Bidwell, Sydney	Campbell, Ian
Archer, Peter	Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Carmichael, Nell
Armstrong, Ernest	Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Cartwright, John
Atkinson, Norman	Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Buchan, Norman	Clemitson, Ivor
Bates, Alf	Buchanan, Richard	Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Bean, R. E.	Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Cohen. Stanley
Coleman, Donald	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Richardson, Miss Jo
Corbett, Robin	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	John, Brynmor	Rodgers George (Chorley)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Kelley, Richard	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cryer, Bob	Kerr, Russell	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Klimarnock)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Ryman, John
Davidson, Arthur	Kinnock, Neil	Sandelson, Neville
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lipton, Marcus	Silverman, Julius
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Loyden, Eddie	Skinner, Dennis
Deakins, Eric	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Small, William
Doig, Peter	McCarlney, Hugh	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Dormand, J. D.	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Spearing, Nigel
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	McElhone, Frank	Stallard, A. W.
Dunnett, Jack	MacKenzie, Gregor	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Edge, Geoff	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Madden, Max	Stoddart, David
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Strang, Gavin
English, Michael	Maynard, Miss Joan	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Meacher, Michael	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Mendelson, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Faulds, Andrew	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Tomlinson, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	Molloy, William	Tuck, Raphael
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Morris, Allred (Wythenshawe)	Urwin, T. W.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N 'w' d)	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Freeson, Reginald	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L 'dyw' d)
Freud, Clement	Newens, Stanley	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Noble, Mike	Watkinson, John
Gilbert, Dr John	Oakes, Gordon	Weitzman, David
Gourlay, Harry	Orbach, Maurice	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Grant, John (Islington C)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	White, James (Pollock)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Ovenden, John	Whitlock, William
Harper, Joseph	Owen, R.I Hon Dr David	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Palmer, Arthur	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Hooley, Frank	Pardoe, John	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Horam, John	Park, George	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Parry, Robert	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Penhaligon, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Perry, Ernest	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Hunter, Adam	Prescott, John	Mr. James Tinn and
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Mr. Ted Graham.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.