§ 6.20 p.m.
§ Debate resumed.
§ LORD HOBSONMy Lords, as I was saying before the Royal Commission, if we get lower capital costs for nuclear stations they will be comparable with conventional stations. If we compare the running costs between stations which are running on ordinary uranium and those running on enriched uranium (as I think is the intention in the White Paper, particularly paragraph 11), if we obtain a successful reactor working on enriched uranium it will certainly be cheaper than the conventional stations in every regard. That is the point I was making.
What is the position to date with regard to enriched uranium that is available in quantities from Copenhurst? They are running down, but there is an adequate supply of enriched uranium for any foreseeable military requirements. Plutonium, of course, is also available from the existing atomic power stations and can be used for the purposes of enrichment and is equivalent to uranium 235. I think this is a very important asset which has come the way of the industry.
What follows from this? After all, this Paper is looking ahead. We are now in a position where we have a choice between natural uranium and enriched uranium and, as the Statement says in paragraph 11, the position is flexible. We can have water reactors, which are run entirely on enriched uranium, and we can also have the Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors which, as the name indicates, are in advance of the Magnox, which does not use enriched uranium. This is the problem that faces the technicians and the scientists and about which quite a lot of controversy was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, when he introduced this debate.
Which reactor will the Central Electricity Generating Board go for, the Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Boiling Water Reactor or the pressurised water reactor? So far as the last two are concerned, I do not intend to say too much, because noble Lords have already made contributions with regard to them. I believe that about 15 per cent. of them 945 are American. But what the Central Electricity Generating Board must do is to decide which is going to be the best and the most economic reactor. This is obviously what Sir Christopher Hinton is particularly interested in finding out, because it is his duty under the Act to provide Britain with the cheapest possible electric power, and, frankly, I think he has done a first-class job. This is precisely what the document says and I do not think the Government could have gone any further.
At the present time we do not know which is the best reactor, whether it is the Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Boiling Water Reactor or the pressurised water reactor. But not only are the three consortia free to tender for the reactor; they are free to tender for an actual site, and this is very important because of the difference in cost that can accrue owing to the terrain. It is impossible from a theoretical assessment to judge exactly the merits of the three different types of reactor, and I believe that is not only the view of Sir Christopher Hinton, but is actually the view of the Atomic Forum, and they should know something about it. I think the Government, the Central Electricity Generating Board and, in this case, the Ministry of Fuel and Power are perfectly right to ask for different types of tender for a particular site.
What is the rôle of the Atomic Energy Authority? What are they doing? I think it is necessary to make a few passing remarks about that. First of all, we have Winfrith Heath, which is collaborating with the three consortia in what is now known as the S.G.H.W. reactor (the Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor), so at least the Atomic Energy Authority are now developing the pressurised water reactor. I am not going to criticise the Atomic Energy Authority for not having done this before. The reason why they could not do so was that, for the reasons given, the enriched uranium was not available; but at least they have made a start at Winfrith Heath.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. The Government are asking for tenders for 500 megawatt atomic reactors. When they ask for tenders for conventional stations they usually ask for tenders for 946 2,000 megawatt stations. This is rather important because comparisons of capital cost per kilowatt should, I think, be made on the basis of stations of similar size and capacity, because obviously if you are going to tender for a small capacity station your capital costs are going to be higher in ratio than they would be for a higher capacity station. I think this is rather unfair and I should like to know what is the intention of the Minister in this regard.
Reference has been made, I believe by the noble Viscount Lord Caldecote, to the question of cost of tenders. The cost of tendering for these atomic power stations runs into tens of thousands of pounds and is a very costly business. Obviously when there are three consortia only one is going to get the job, but I am not so sure that we have not arrived at the stage when, in fairness, because of the tremendous cost of research involved in putting in these tenders for these atomic power stations, there should not be some grant from the Government. I believe this is fair and just. I do not believe it is fair to ask British industry to have to bear that cost, and if we compare their record when they are dealing with prototypes of missiles or aircraft, we find, of course, that the full cost is met. I should like that to be gone into.
My Lords, I do not particularly want to stress a political point in a discussion of this nature, but paragraph 2 does raise the whole question of interest rates. What are the Government's intentions in this regard? Presumably, from this, they are just going to let the market work. I do not think this is good enough. I believe, as I have argued in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, that a case has been made out for low interest rates for public utilities. I think that something ought to be done about that, particularly in view of the cost of atomic power stations. I see nothing wrong and see no conflict of ideology in having low interest rates for public utility capital expenditure.
The other point I should like to ask the Minister is this and if he cannot give this information I shall fully understand because it cannot be easy to ascertain. Why are the Government taking into account lower credits for 947 the plutonium surplus? If this information is not readily available now I should appreciate it if the noble Lord would let me know in writing. I do not think there is any ground, from a secrecy point of view, for not giving this information.
I now come to my final question, and it deals with the Atomic Energy Authority's monopoly in uranium fuel. In the United States there are five firms making fuel elements. I do not mind the Atomic Energy Authority having this monopoly but I should like to ask the Government (I am not sure if we can get the information, and probably it is not fair to ask; but I think it is right to do so) to inquire and satisfy themselves that the cost paid by the Central Electricity Generating Board for fuel elements is fair and that the profit is reasonable. We do not want any question of off-setting the losses for certain of their exercises—I will not refer to the Belgonucleaire Vulcain reactor as my noble Leader is here and he may intervene— but I should like to know whether the Government are sure that the profit is fair and reasonable.
Finally, this has been a very interesting debate and I share the sentiments of every speaker; I think we can take great pride in British industry and their achievements, whether it be in the private or the public sector, in putting us (and do not let us underestimate it: we still are) in the forefront of atomic power station construction in the numbers on the grid and in production capacity. If we remember the grave capital shortages which this country has had to face as the result of the war, and the fact that we have not the same natural mineral resources as the United States, I think that when we look at the real achievement —eight stations— we can say, with true British pride, that we have done a good job. I wish the industry well.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, after listening to your Lordships, I feel that this is an entirely suitable debate for a Home Office Minister to reply to. There is no denying either the importance or the difficulty of the issues raised in considering the future development of nuclear power in this country. For this reason it is of great value to hear the views of one with such great knowledge as my 948 noble friend Lord Coleraine, and indeed of the other speakers to-day. I am not replying to this debate; I am giving the Government's view of it. I shall, I think, in what I am going to say cover most of the questions that have been raised by noble Lords; I hope to do so. And, of course, there are certain specific questions which have been addressed to the Government which, unfortunately, I cannot expect my noble friend to reply to. I think it is fair to say that, generally, informed comment outside the House, and indeed to-day inside the House, on the whole has been favourable to the Government's decision. Some delay is inevitable if we are to obtain the firm data required to settle the lines of the second nuclear power programme, but the Government will ensure that it is kept to the minimum.
I should like to refer first of all to some newspaper comments in which the issues have been dramatised into a conflict of personalities, but this is to misunderstand completely the nature of the differences of opinion. It would be absurd to pretend that in some important respects there are not differences of approach in looking at future lines of development. The Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board have a common objective in the successful and economic development of nuclear power, but with their different functions they naturally approach this objective from different points of view. It is inevitable that this should be reflected in different assessments now of the outcome of work still some way from completion. There is nothing wrong in this; indeed, such differences are healthy, and, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, welcome, for they assist in the discovery of the best line of action.
The issues are important because, as the White Paper shows, nuclear power is likely to have an economic place in the British electricity system by the early 1970s; and the Paper suggests that thereafter it will become cheaper than conventional power for base-load generation. Nuclear power is therefore likely to play a growing part in our energy supplies; and with demands for electricity (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who gave this figure) doubling every ten years or less, it will become of major importance to our economy in quite a short space of years. 949 In this venture in such a new and, indeed, exciting technology it is essential that we should do everything possible to safeguard the position which has been established by the British manufacturing firms. The issues are also very difficult —I admit that—because, as the White Paper said, the choice open to us now is so much wider than in the earlier days of nuclear power in this country. Then we had one system developed in this country, the Magnox reactor, using natural uranium as fuel and carbon dioxide as coolant—which for our purposes was then in advance of all others. Moreover the shortage of conventional fuels at that time (which was a problem foreseen for Western Europe as a whole) made it desirable to undertake a rapid expansion of the scope for using this new source of power. Our present nuclear power programme running up to 1969 has provided for the building of nine stations with a total nuclear capacity in the country of about 5,000 megawatts.
A number of new reactor systems have been developed, and with the advances in conventional generation and the plentiful supplies of conventional fuels we have the opportunity to consider very carefully the direction of the new nuclear power programme. It is indeed a measure of the success of nuclear power that alternative types of reactors likely to generate power economically are available; and the aim of the Government must be to ensure that the best choice is made for the second programme.
The White Paper is thus an interim report and it leaves important questions to he answered when further investigations have been completed. Because the supply industry and the contracting firms need to have some guide about the scale of future development, the Government thought it right to announce in this interim White Paper that for planning purposes a figure of 5,000 megawatts for England and Wales had been agreed with the authorities concerned. But the programme is flexible (I say that in spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, does not like the word) and it will be reviewed at regular intervals. The policy outlined in the White Paper was agreed with both the Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority, and both have made absolutely clear that they support it.
950 It is right that tribute should be paid to the very distinguished men who lead these organisations. The country is fortunate in having at the Generating Board Sir Christopher Hinton, who has done so much, in spite of certain criticisms, to advance nuclear technology in this country; and at the Atomic Energy Authority Sir William Penney now, and before him Sir Roger Makins.
The present programme in this country consists of Magnox reactors, which use natural unenriched uranium as fuel and carbon dioxide as coolant. As a result of the assessment made by the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, they concluded, and the Government have accepted, that in the circumstances now prevailing in the United Kingdom further development of the Magnox is likely to show smaller advantages in this country than those offered by other systems. It must be remembered that these assessments do not apply everywhere. The Magnox system may still show advantages in some other countries.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord. This is most important. I did raise this point. Does the last sentence mean that he and the Government are still of opinion that the Magnox system has a future with regard to our export programme?
§ LORD DERWENTThat is still possible; that is so.
Of the other systems that I mentioned one of the most promising is the Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor, called A.G.R., under development by the Atomic Energy Authority. This is a direct successor to the Magnox system and by working at a temperature some 200 degrees Centigrade higher than the Magnox stations this reactor achieves a better thermal efficiency—what my noble friend was talking about—and, unlike Magnox, can make use of standard modern generating sets as used in conventional stations. A pilot plant at Wind-scale has operated reliably and well since early 1963 and is now on a long proving run. The 30,000 fuel elements in the reactor have already achieved about a quarter of the irradiation expected of them, and not one failure has been detected. The Authority (if I may abbreviate, because it is quicker) consider that 951 with more advanced types of fuel element, and with reactors of large size, the long-term development prospects of A.G.R. are good.
Some people think, and indeed have said, that because the United Kingdom Authority has developed the A.G.R. and believe it to be the most promising design available at present, we should base our programme on it straight away. But to rule out of consideration all others would benefit neither the supply industry nor the A.G.R. Information received suggests that other systems developed, in particular in the United States, may produce power more cheaply at this point in time. It is right, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, that these and other claims should be examined, and in view of the different circumstances in which the systems have been developed it is necessary to do this with the aid of firm tenders for plants to be built on a particular site. This was a point greatly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hobson.
The Generating Board has invited tenders for an A.G.R. to be built at Dungeness alongside the Magnox station there which is nearing completion, and will also be ready to consider tenders from British industry for water-moderated reactor systems of proved design. I am sure that, as several noble Lords have said, we ought not to take too insular a view about this sort of development. A number of countries are working in the field of nuclear power, and it is wrong to rule out of consideration other people's ideas simply because they come from another country. Even if one American system were to play a part in our programme, the amount of dollar cost would, it is estimated, be only about 15 per cent. The remainder of the cost— namely, the great bulk of the hardware—would be spent here; and it is quite likely that the greater part of the work would be done by British firms. Only part of the "know-how" and certain special equipment would be likely to come from overseas.
In the course of recent investigations a good number of studies were undertaken for the Government, both by the Generating Board and by the Authority, 952 of various systems on different assumptions. A good deal has been said about the different ground rules, as they are called, on which such calculations are made; and this is certainly one of the difficulties in presenting firm estimates of relative costs, and in comparing nuclear with conventional generators. At this stage of nuclear development, when the long-term performance of all types of reactor has still to be established, it is not surprising that there should be different views about such matters as the life of reactors, their load factor over the years, and how long nuclear fuel will last. It is not simply a matter of comparing one type of station in isolation with another, since these are going to be added (this is important) to the interconnected system of stations in this country, this being the largest in the world. It is necessary to allow for the effect of the working of the new station on the whole system.
These assessments are most complicated. We should do well to remember that this is a most uncertain world, and in settling the lines of future developments, both nuclear and conventional, we are concerned with large sums of what the City calls "risk capital". The tenders will be received next year, and, as the White Paper says, full supporting evidence will be required for the water systems, and the Generating Board will ensure that the tenders are judged on a comparable basis. This was a point raised by my noble friend who moved this Motion.
The noble Lord suggested—I do not know that I can go so far as to say that he claimed —that there is no comparable basis for judging the tenders for Dungeness. It is true that the plants are likely to be of different sizes. For the A.G.R. it is the intention that the reactor should be coupled with, and match, one of the standard Generating Board 500-megawatt sets. Allowing for electricity used in the process, the net output will be about 460 megawatts. On the other side, the Generating Board do not think it necessary to restrict tenders for the boiling-water systems. They cannot use the standard 500-megawatt sets— that is to say, to the same size—because the steam is generated at lower temperatures and pressures, and they have asked that designs should be 953 similar to those of plants now on order in America. They felt it better to go for a design which is already in being. They consider that the larger size will not affect the efficiency significantly, but it is bound to make for lower capital cost per kilowatt. The Board are well aware of this, as indeed are the Government, and aim in comparing the tenders to bring both to a comparable basis. They will obtain the information about the effect of size which will enable them to do this; so that this diversity will not bias the results. We are not just looking to the cheaper station in terms of capital cost per kilowatt, but aim to find which of all these systems, taking everything together, such as capital cost, operating costs, fuel supplies and development potential, is the best—or it may be which systems are best—for the British nuclear power programme and the electricity supply system as well.
Finally, the results of this inquiry will be reviewed by the Government, by the Authority and by the supply industry—that is, the Electricity Council and the Generating Board, in order to decide the type or types of reactor to be built. When this is done, it will be possible to consider not only the straight cost comparisons but also to take into account such matters as the supply of fuel and the scope for improving and developing the system or systems adopted. When the investigation is complete and a decision has been reached, the Government will see that as much information as possible is published. Our present White Paper, as I said earlier, is by way of being an interim statement, and the full statement will be made when further investigations are completed.
§ LORD STONHAMNext year?
§ LORD DERWENTWhen further investigations are completed.
There have been some criticisms of our not giving more information with the present White Paper, but in view of all the uncertainties we feel that it would be both undesirable and, perhaps more important, misleading to do so. It would be undesirable to do so because in the investigations a good deal of confidential information was provided from a number of sources; and it would be misleading because a full and fair comparison can- 954 not be made until firm tenders are received. We must not allow ourselves to be swayed by sales talk unsubstantiated by firm offers; and indeed, in answering the comments about the reasons why the Americans can offer reactors at a lower price, I think it fair to suggest that we wait to see what comes out of the inquiry. There will be, as is customary, the most careful examination of the overall advantages of the different tenders. The undertaking of these investigations involves much work in collaboration, and I would stress how extensive is the collaboration between these two bodies. The building and commissioning of the present stations has involved a great partnership between the two, together with the consortia and the many contracting firms and the Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in their Report on the electricity supply industry, drew attention to differences of view about reactor developments, and I have already suggested the reasons for this. The Government are satisfied that there is effective collaboration between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority. In considering the direction and size of our new nuclear programme we have the supply industry and the Authority brought together with Government Departments to report to the Government. I am sure that all concerned fully appreciate the importance of this collaborative effort and are doing their best to make it work fully and effectively. Of course, the consortia and the various firms in the contracting industry also have their part to play. There is, and always has been, close liaison between these great organisations and the Generating Board as well as the Authority.
A good deal has been said about tendering and contracting procedures. These are essentially matters to be worked out by those directly concerned; that is, the Generating Board and plant manufacturers. But the Government are aware of the difficulties presented by the present arrangements, and to-day I do not want to say more than that. Standardisation is clearly not the whole answer at this stage of development of such a new technology. Development must continue and we must try to maintain a careful balance between development and repetition if we are to maintain a leading position in nuclear power. It is up to both the plant 955 manufacturers and the Generating Board to consider and adapt their organisations and arrangements to achieve the most efficient practices, in the best interests of the whole country.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine has contrasted rather dramatically the position of nuclear power developments here and in the United States. But I wonder whether in fact there is not some inconsistency between his earlier suggestion that electricity supply undertakings over there purchased nuclear power stations in considerable quantities from hard calculations of profit and loss, and the later one that in this country nuclear development should be in the hands of the Atomic Energy Authority or of some body specially set up to look after it.
My noble friend made an interesting suggestion about adopting a similar arrangement to that used in Canada for developing nuclear power. This point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hobson. I am certain that they are both right that this merits careful consideration, but my preliminary reaction is that what he suggests would not enable the Generating Board to discharge what is, and must remain, its prime responsibility for the operation of nuclear plant in this country. As my noble friend has said, the Board purchase electricity from plant designed and operated by the Authority, and indeed with the A.E.A. prototype steam generating reactor of 100 megawatts which is now under construction at Winfrith Heath they are building quite large reactors. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Authority are considering the building of a prototype fast reactor to follow the successful experimental plant at Dounreay; but they are not yet ready to put proposals to the Government. I shall have something further to say about Dounreay in a moment.
The programme adopted for planning purposes is for the commissioning of 5,000 megawatts in the period 1970–75. If the first commercial station of, say, 1,000 megawatts were to be built and operated by the Authority and it was necessary to wait till the results were available before deciding on the next stage, it would not be till the late 1970's that similar plants could he commissioned by the Generating Board. One of the brightest features of the new programme 956 is that now nuclear power is expected to have a fully economic place in the supply system by the early 1970's; the new programme is not simply a development programme. All the Generating Board power stations for public supply —and this is an important point—are run as constituents of a single, integrated system. It is the largest in the world, with connections to Scotland and France. Commercial stations should therefore be operated by the supply industry, who will see that they are designed and work as constituents of the system— which, of course, also comprises conventional coal and oil stations as well as nuclear ones. If the nuclear stations are economic they will fit into the supply system; if they are not, then in my view no change in responsibility will alter the fact. But in the hands of the Generating Board it will be possible to assess their capital and operating costs as well as their technical performance.
I would remind the House that the policy statement in this White Paper really is an agreed one: agreed between the Government, the supply industry and the Authority. My noble friend said that the British nuclear programme has failed, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in a not very helpful and in some respects slightly inaccurate speech, also thought the Government had failed. Bradwell and Berkeley are running well and made a valuable contribution to electricity supplies in the 1962–63 winter, and the experience with the Magnox system provides the essential base for other developments. The Advanced Gas-Cooler Reactor at Windscale is running successfully and is recognised as one of the most promising types. The Authority are developing other systems and this country has a considerable lead in development of fast reactors like the one at Dounreay. We are now in a position when we can confidently expect nuclear power to be economic in Britain by the early 1970's. I refuse to accept that these achievements can be written off as a failure of our programme.
I should like to say a word about Dounreay. The Dounreay fast reactor achieved its full design power of 60 megawatts of heat in June-July, 1963, and ran fairly continuously up to March 30 when it was shut down for refuelling and experimental purposes. Up to that date, it had produced 34 million units of 957 electricity; 23 million of those were exported to the national grid, making the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board the first utility to use power commercially from a fast reactor. It has now started a further long run at high power. I hope that gives the noble Lord the present position at Dounreay.
At this point I should like to answer a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, about the apportionment of the additional cost of nuclear power under the present programme. The Select Committee recommended that this should be reconsidered. The Government, as well as the supply industry, do not agree that at this late stage of the present nuclear programme, which has been taken into account in the plans and financial estimates of the Electricity supply industry, there should be any general re-allocation of costs between the electricity consumer and the tax-paper. The programme was agreed by the Generating Board at the time and a proposal to re-allocate its costs on the basis of some other hypothetical programme which, in the light of events, might have been considered more appropriate, could not now be justified. This was the answer given by my right honourable friend to the Select Committee, which I think they accepted; that is to say, at this moment in time it was an unwise move to re-allocate.
In conclusion, may I say that this has been a helpful debate, and help is rather what we wanted as this is an interim White Paper. I will undertake to see that the various points which have been made by all noble Lords are brought to the notice of my right honourable friends who are concerned with the different aspects of the programme. I should like to assure your Lordships that the Government are determined that the decision about the next reactor, or reactors, should be reached as soon as possible, that is, as soon as possible after the tenders. I can assure your Lordships that, once that has been done and a decision made—there are many calculations to be made, and it will take some time—there will not be any delay in pushing the new programme forward as fast as we possibly can.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, I must express my sincere thanks to those of your Lordships who have contributed 958 to this debate and made it such an interesting one. I should ill requite you if I were to inflict upon you another speech, but perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two very brief comments upon what has passed this afternoon. Many of your Lordships fastened on my suspicion and dislike of this American licence. I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was under the impression that I resented the American licence because it was an affront to our national prestige. I can assure him that he is wrong. I am not in the least concerned with our national prestige. We do not live by prestige; we live by skill and work. My objection to the American licence is because of its effect on the nuclear manufacturing industry in this country in five or ten years' time, when we need a manufacturing industry and may not have one.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said, "Oh, that does not matter. You can accept a licence from a foreign firm and still develop your own industry." That is true of some things, but I doubt if it is true of all. I can accept a licence to build an American motor car, the noble Viscount can go on building his own motor cars, and that is all right. But if I accept a licence to build an American nuclear power station I doubt if I have, in fact, the resources to build my own nuclear power station without adding tremendously to the costs of my nuclear power station and making it uncompetitive, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said.
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply, and certainly I am in no position to argue with him. But there are just two points that I should like to put to him. As I understood him, he replied to the point I raised in my speech about the disparity between the 460 megawatt set and the 600 megawatt set by saying that there would be a weightage factor allowed in the final assessment, to take account of that. I do not know whether or not that is possible, and, if he will not think me offensive, I doubt if he knows either.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. He is right that I do not know, but it was a point that I raised myself. I am told there are formulas agreed between the Authority and the Ministry and the Generating Board by which they say 959 they can do it. It is far too mathematical for me, because I had a classical education.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, I am delighted to hear there are formulæwhich I should have thought his education would have evoked instead of "formulas"—but would it not really be simpler, instead of having a 500 megawatt set calling forth this elaborate mathematical formula, to specify a 600 megawatt set, as the South of Scotland Electricity Board has apparently specified in its new order for a conventional power station? But that is by the way, and I should like my noble friend to reflect on that.
The only other point I would take him up on is when he accused me of inconsistency in saying that I praised the Americans for working on calculations of profit and loss and objected to the Generating Board's working on calculations of profit and loss. That is not my position at all. I should not mind the Generating Board's working on calculations of profit and loss—I wish it would; then we should have a more sensible system of tendering. I wish it would go in for repeat orders instead of insisting that every new design must be a one-off job. The trouble with the Generating Board is not that it works on calculations of profit and loss, but that it attempts to combine calculations of profit and loss on pioneering technical and scientific advancement, with the nuclear power programme; and I still believe, in spite of what the noble Lord said, that you cannot ride those two horses at once. However, my Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and to your Lordships, and I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.