Lords Sitting of 5 December 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

ADVERTISING MATTER AND THE POSTAL SERVICES
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the alleged shortage of paper and the heavy burden placed upon the under-staffed Post Office, they will do something to restrict the flood of unsolicited advertising matter which makes up so much of the daily mail deliveries.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government do not consider the present shortage of paper requires them to intervene in the normal commercial practices of the firms concerned. So far as the Post Office is concerned, I understand that the noble Lord's suggestion would not afford any significant relief, since the postman has to cover the whole of his delivery route whatever the quantity of mail he carries.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, which I find entirely unsatisfactory, may I say that we know as a fact that postmen are extremely overloaded at the moment. Are the Government aware that Scotland is lending postmen to England in order to cover duties over the Christmas period? This subject is of great importance to very many people; most of us suffer from this overload of unnecessary paper. One must think of the postmen sometimes.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, the shortage of staff does indeed cause inconvenience—that is well appreciated—but it is a fact that the rebate traffic, which is the means by which this unsolicited advertising matter is sent, is not handled at the peak times. It is further a fact that the Post Office would not welcome any measure which would lead to a permanent loss of their revenue-earning activities.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government realise that this is not only a question of the Post Office but a very serious question of refuse disposal? Your Lordships would find it hard to realise the tonnage of paper that has to be carried away from my house and disposed of.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, there is indeed some problem in the supply of paper, but the serious problem is in the area of newsprint. There have been very few complaints about other paper supplies; and of course newsprint is not involved in this traffic.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is possible to repulp for newspaper work, this mass of paper, which becomes refuse as soon as it arrives?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot without notice, but the suggestion can certainly be looked at.
LORD HALE: My Lords, may I ask for the Government's protection of individual rights? Can arrangements be made by which the individual himself can say that he does not want to receive this matter, and thus protect an old age pensioner like myself from being constantly pestered to spend £200 or £300 on silver and gold plaques? Is there not a simple way of preserving the freedom of the individual, the liberty of communication, and doing away with what is an intolerable nuisance?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, this is a matter that was looked at by the Younger Committee. There are, of course, people who dislike receiving this quantity of unsolicited material. Unfortunately, there is no easy method of communicating the desire of those, like the noble Lord, who feel that way to those who are the originators of the paper.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they are aware that censorship of this kind is not really a matter for the Post Office; and furthermore that any suggested interference would be an infringement of individual freedom?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I believe that is in line with the answer I gave.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that to stop the circularisation of so many pamphlets and leaflets from the pharmaceutical industry would be in the interests of the nation?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think that is something of a different question. There are also problems about the companies which produce these products advertising them in any other way.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, in view of the immense waste of paper and of some of the best creative talent in this country, of which we appear to be slightly short at the moment, will not the Government look at the whole problem again?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I do not think I can add to the Answer I gave. I do not think it would be appropriate to intervene in the way suggested in the Question. Naturally, one hopes that creative talent is always used to the best advantage.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL: CHECK-IN FACILITIES
2.41 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the views of the Airline Users Committee that the withdrawal of passenger check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal will cause hardship to passengers, and particularly to the elderly; and that the British Airways case for this action on economic grounds has not convinced the Committee, who ask that the Ter-
594
minal shall continue as a check-in point until the expected 1976 underground rail link is opened.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): Yes, my Lords, the Chairman of the Committee, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has drawn the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping to the Committee's views on this matter. I understand that, in response to the Committee's criticisms, the British Airways Board have now given details of the additional action they propose to take to try to ensure that passengers do not suffer hardship after the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal are withdrawn at the end of this year. The Board have also offered to co-operate fully with the Committee in monitoring the working of the new arrangements in the early months of next year, so that any hardship that emerges in practice can be quickly detected.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have read British Airways defence and find it peculiarly unconvincing? Is he also aware that, since I put down my Parliamentary Question, a new situation has arisen which makes quite unacceptable in the broad national interest the closing of the West London Air Terminal? Is it not a fact that the Government are urging fuel economy in every direction, and endeavouring to set an example themselves? Is this not a deliberate encouragement by British Airways to passengers to use their own cars to go to Heathrow, and is not that a travesty of the Government's own policy? To have 60 persons in a coach, and the alternative proposed by British European Airways is 60 individual cars taking those passengers to Heathrow Airport, is surely completely contrary to the Government's urging of economy? If British Airways are not willing to suspend their proposal during this national fuel emergency, is it not necessary for the Government, with the powers that they possess under the Act, to intervene to stop this needless waste of fuel taking place?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say first of all to my noble friend that the British Airways Board are not closing the West London Terminal; what they are doing is withdrawing the check-in

595
facilities. This will not necessarily mean—and we shall have to see how it works out in practice—that fewer people will use the West London Terminal. As I understand it, the purpose of the British Airways Board in doing this is to make better use of their buses, to see that they are more full than they are at the present time; and they will do this by running regular services at specified times.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sorry, but that is no answer at all. British Airways themselves say that 20 per cent. of their passengers at present use the Terminal. Twenty per cent. of, say, 10 million is 2 million people using the Terminal. What the British Airways Board are doing, and if the Government do not take steps they are countenancing this action, is to waste fuel, in that they are endeavouring to drive that 20 per cent. into private cars which will use fuel which need not be used if coaches are used in place of individual cars.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the buses are surely used primarily because they are the most convenient way for this 20 per cent. to get to the London Airport, and the probability is that they will be more used as a result of the fuel shortage, and the need will be met by the bus service. At the present time, individual buses are running to meet individual flights, and that is not the best use of the resources of buses available.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the closing of the facilities at the West London Air Terminal would deprive over 1 million people of a very great benefit which they have enjoyed, and that those million people will include the old people of Britain and those who cannot afford to take motor transport to Heathrow? It will add to the congestion at Heathrow, and many of us—indeed, I suspect most in this House—support the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in the fight that they have made to bring some sense into the Government on this particular matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is of course true that this will transfer the check-in from West London Air Terminal to Heathrow. If I may have
596
the indulgence of the House, I will say exactly what the proposals are in Mr. Marking's own words to meet the Committee's needs:
"They would insert a special slip in their tickets, carefully explaining the conditions on which the bus service from West London Air Terminal would be offered from 1 January next and clearly indicating what time passengers should allow for their journey to Heathrow in order to be reasonably certain of catching their flights;

"ii. They would take responsibility for anyone who despite following this advice missed his plane because a bus had been delayed on the M.4, booking him on to the next available flight and, if necessary, meeting the cost of a night's hotel accommodation at Heathrow;

"iii. They would ensure that a supervisor was permanently on duty at Terminal No. 1, who would ensure that porters helped bus passengers through check-in quickly if their bus arrived at Heathrow with little time to spare;

"iv. They would co-operate with the Airline Users Committee in monitoring the system during the first three months of next year, and would then consider carefully what further action could be taken, if despite their expectations, significant difficulties for passengers had arisen."

I would add to that that they are increasing the checking-in facilities at Heathrow, and of course, as noble Lords will be aware, an extra lift is being provided by the British Airports Authority.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend explain the logic of closing the check-in facilities at Kensington, and at the same time keeping them open at the old B.O.A.C. place at Victoria? If one can be kept open, why not the other, or why can they not be combined?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the conditions are entirely different for long-distance B.O.A.C. services, which will continue to be served by special buses meeting particular planes. In the main, the planes in that case have a much larger capacity.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain why there is such a body as the Airlines Users Committee? Presumably they are asked to make suggestions; but when they do the Government, or the B.A.A. people, completely ignore their recommendations. What is the point of having the Airline Users Committee?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have tried to make it plain that the

597
B.A.A. have not ignored the Committee's recommendations. They have gone as far as they feel possible to meet them.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the whole House feels that they have in fact ignored the feelings of your Lordships, of the public, and of everybody who wants the airlines and the whole situation to succeed? Is he further aware that a slip in one's ticket is not the same as the guarantee of catching a plane?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have gone over this ground very often, but a guarantee of catching the plane can mean that the other 80 per cent. who go direct are held up a long time, and that they may miss their connections if they have to fly on further. It is quite impossible to guarantee that in all circumstances a bus will reach an aircraft unless one is prepared to accept substantial delays.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that there are in fact no guarantees, and that flights are frequently held up for long periods for no good reason other than the "technical" reasons which are advanced by the airports? Would the noble Lord not agree that the psychology of the air transport user should be considered in this matter, and that a person considers that he has started his flight at the point where he checks in? This brings us back to the point which he noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, brought up in the first place: does the noble Lord not agree that one should encourage users of air transport—not merely not discourage them, but encourage them—to book in at the nearest central point, so as to save fuel in this emergency? When the Underground route is available, by all means let us make the check-in point at the end of the Underground. But would the noble Lord not agree to look at this matter again?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as delays are concerned, there are of course delays for other reasons, besides the fact that buses may be late. These are mainly related to the safety of the operations of the planes themselves. So far as concerns the second point that the noble Viscount made, I suggest to noble Lords that it has to
598
be remembered that this is practically the only service of its kind in the world.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, indeed. Secondly, the check-in facilities have already been withdrawn from foreign airlines at West London Air Terminal. That was done at the beginning of October, and no complaints at all have been received so far by the bus operators.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, could my noble friend amplify his curious remark about the circumstances being different with B.O.A.C. because the aeroplanes are larger? Surely the buses are the same size.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was considering the occupancy of those buses, the number of people who use them. It is a fact that a great many of the buses leave West London Air Terminal very sparsely occupied.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether there have been any complaints from foreign airlines due to the withdrawal of these technical facilities at Cromwell Road Air Terminal? Further, can he say what is the estimated financial saving for the year 1974 from the withdrawal of these technical facilities, and whether it is worth it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am advised that there have been no such complaints. Indeed, as the airlines have not got such facilities of their own at those places from which they start, it is hardly surprising, perhaps, that there have been no complaints. I am told that the annual saving is about half a million pounds a year.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the withdrawal of these check-in facilities will prove in themselves to be a false economy? What is to happen to those who are engaged in the service at the present moment? Further, is he aware that, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, he is the best stone-wailer I have ever met in replying to a question? What about the question which has been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, about the users' councils? Why did we set them up if

599
the recommendations from those users' councils to various Departments of Government are going to be ignored?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have said already that they have not been ignored, and what I have read out shows the extent to which the British Airways Board are trying to meet their point. The noble Lord in particular will know how these things are done. There has of course had to be a great deal of negotiation with the unions on this matter in order to place people elsewhere and to absorb them elsewhere. It is the belief of the B.A.B. that they will be much better employed and much more efficiently employed elsewhere, and that is one of the reasons for the step which has been taken—to make the best use of our scarce labour resources.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, in his unenviable position, whether he is aware that there is limited cause for congratulation in that British Airways have put down what they ought to do anyway? May I add to that the question whether he would not feel that a failure to consider the compromise part of the noble Lord's Question is really a breakdown of management generally—an inability to bridge a gap which will last only a few years?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it might last only a few years—I think the noble Lord has the completion of the Underground system to London Heathrow in mind—but that is likely to be two and a half to three years, and it is a substantial amount of money which is involved. But this is a compromise solution which is put forward, and no doubt the Airline Users' Committee will be considering the compromise provision as well. I hope that they will co-operate in monitoring it, so as to make further improvements as time goes on.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in view of the feelings of the House, would my noble friend consider calling upon the Civil Aviation Authority, who have a duty under the Civil Aviation Act—thanks, I may say, to this House —to look after the consumers' interests, to examine whether they should impose a condition on the present licences of B.E.A. affected by these withdrawals of
600
service until the consumers' dispute has been settled?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend will be well aware that the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority is the chairman of the Airline Users' Committee. And it is not for the Government to dictate to the Civil Aviation Authority how it should act.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I have kept out of the exchanges to-day, being a member of the Airline Users' Committee, but I hoped to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as Leader of the House, at the end of these exchanges. May I ask him whether he is aware that the grievous disquiet which has been shown by all quarters of the House has now lasted for 19 months? Is he further aware that in the Press release which was made public on November 21 the statement was made, based on material provided by B.E.A., that the number of planes delayed had been one plane every two days over last year and that the percentage of delays was 0·4 per cent.? Now in view of this disquiet—and these details never get into the papers—may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he would use his best endeavours to see that a Statement is made in your Lordships' House before Christmas as to what will be the future of the check-in facilities at Gloucester Road after January 1?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I could also rise and ask a question of the noble Lord the Leader of the House on a rather parallel point. There is obviously grave disquiet in the House, and if we had an opportunity to debate this subject and vote it is quite likely that a very firm expression of opinion would emerge. We have not very much time before Christmas. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider something along the following lines? First of all, would it be possible to postpone action until the House has had an opportunity to debate this matter? That is something that might be discussed through the usual channels. My noble friend Lady Burton had hoped to have a debate, but there has not been time. We might then hear both sides of the case;

601
and I am bound to say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that his answers do not appear to have been very convincing up till now. Would the Leader of the House consider this point? Certainly from the Opposition Benches we should be glad to try to co-operate in any way.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has already been in touch with the Prime Minister on this question, and she will receive a reply from him which represents the views of the Government as a whole. Further, since she spoke to me about it before the Recess, I have been in touch with the Departmental Ministers concerned and I can tell her that what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said represents the views of those Ministers who are directly concerned—and I know this from my own discussions. As to a debate in this House, we are to discuss the British Airways Board Order quite shortly, and certainly through the usual channels we could see whether that might be the occasion for a wider debate.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, when?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think probably before Christmas. I should like to pursue that point with the noble Lord and see what the content of the Order is—whether it deals with this particular point. I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter, but it is also important for the House to appreciate that statutory responsibilities are placed on Ministers and on public authorities, and there is a real difficulty here. I was going to intervene, anyway. We have had 24 minutes of Question Time with one short Question and one very long one. The third Question is from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye on exactly the same matter, and I think that we ought to move on to that Question.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the Leader of the House permit me to put one pedestrian point? If the Government's proposals go through, would the Minister be kind enough to make representations to British Airways that those of us who use the West London Terminal would be greatly helped if we could be
602
allowed the facilities to move our own baggage, and not be told that we are not allowed to shift it without employing a porter? In other words, bring it into line with the arrangements at Heathrow. That would be a considerable advantage. I do not ask for a reply to-day, but would the noble Lord be good enough to make that representation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly take that up.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I trust that I do not deserve the rebuke from the Leader of the House which seemed to me to be rather implied in his remarks. I think that I am quite entitled to ask this Question. It was not I who took up a long time on supplementary questions, but other noble Lords. Therefore I beg to ask my Question, the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if British Airways continue their insistence on closing the check-in facilities at West London Terminal, they will advance to British Airways the compromise proposal that coach departures shall be linked to specific flights, thus guaranteeing to terminal departing passengers their air connections.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand that the British Airways Board considered this proposal carefully before deciding to take the compromise action I have already described in answering the noble Lord's previous Question.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the compromise proposal will not meet the position which I think should obtain? Will the noble Lord consider the possibility of the Government's making a Statement as and when we have an opportunity further to debate this matter, so that questions raised by noble Lords on all sides of the House can be properly and adequately answered to the satisfaction of the House, which is certainly not satisfied at the present time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am aware that most of the noble Lords, all but one, who have asked questions have not been satisfied. But there will undoubtedly be an opportunity for noble Lords to put their points when we next have an opportunity to discuss this matter, and I, certainly, shall be forewarned of the sort of points that they will be likely to put and shall deal with them to the best of my ability. The narrow point of this Question is whether we should be able to guarantee that a person who checks in and catches a particular bus will get on to the plane. This is the point. I have dealt with it already, and I must leave it to the House.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, as obviously the Government's desire is to meet the wishes of the travelling public if they can, would the Government invite Members of this House to describe the sufferings they have gone through at foreign airports, almost all of which use the system which British Airways are now about to adopt? Clearly, under the new system it would seem that people must have suffered very much abroad, where they do not enjoy the generous facilities and assurances which British Airways are prepared to offer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has said in making up their minds.

E.E.C. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETING
3.3 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the recent meeting of the European Economic Community Council of Ministers at a convenient moment after 3.30.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that dinners will again be available to-night.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the protection of wild plants. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ENERGY SUPPLIES AND POLICY
3.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET rose to call attention to the energy crisis; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we last debated energy nine months ago, we have seen one of the most vertiginous accelerations in the history of our lifetime. We have, over the last decade, imprudently become more and more dependent on a single group of countries for our energy supplies, while permitting a third country to expand and take more and more of their territories. It is no good huffing and puffing about "blackmail". Whatever the elders of Zion may say, we know perfectly well that every nation in the world would do exactly the same as the Arabs have done. Suppose our own country had been attacked by one of our neighbours, armed with American weapons, and backed by two distant—
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, if I may be forgiven for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could he state precisely—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will intervene later in the debate—
LORD SEGAL: Could the noble Lord amplify whom he means by "the Elders of Zion"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not feel inclined to accept an interruption at so early a stage. Suppose, my Lords, our own country had been attacked by one of our neighbours armed with American weapons and backed by two distant and powerful States, and that our enemy had occupied, say, the South-West as far as Bristol. Suppose that all United Nations attempts to rectify that had failed and that again, 11 years later, that country had attacked from their base in the South West, again armed with American weapons, and had driven our Army back to a line, say, from Southampton to Birmingham and that the United Nations had passed a resolution that they should go back where they came from, and they had not. Then suppose that after six years of waiting and hoping we, in desperation, took the law into our own hands and attacked them, for the first time, and that, after hard fighting in which they were again supplied by America, we found that we could not drive them out; and that we were, if anything, a little worse off, even after this third war. Supposing all this, my Lords, can anyone think that we should not then turn to economic sanctions against the countries which were backing our invaders?
What do we think the Arabs are? Do we think that they are men or footstools? Well, my Lords, the world's "under-dog" has at last risen up, and they have imposed on their sole export commodity not a ban but a production cut-back. This cut-back makes for confusion, and confusion makes for losses. I suspect that, even if this or that country, including ourselves, are intended to be exempted by the Arab oil-producing countries from that cut-back we shall continue to lose supplies over some time because of the confusion caused by the general cut-back
606
in production. For myself, I believe that it is the price increase which will concern us even more than loss of imports over the long term. I do not believe that we have yet realised, and shall not realise until the ships which even now are at sea come in, what the effect of these price increases will be. It will make our whole economy settle into a different shape. It is very hard to foresee this shape at the present stage. Certain effects we can already foresee. First, Middle East oil ceases now, from this moment, to be the cheapest and most convenient fuel we have. Second, our own North Sea oil and gas becomes thereby an asset far more valuable than we supposed and, it may well be, far more worthy of conservation and long-term management than we supposed. Third, during the remaining lifetime of Middle East oil the money flow into the Middle East countries, which has already surpassed their domestic absorption capacity, will be greatly increased, probably to £50,000 million a year, quite soon.
This increase confronts the Western World with two unfamiliar dangers. The first is that so much of this money will be invested back into the industrial and financial institutions of the West and of Japan as to give the Middle East countries effective control of our economies. The second is that the Soviet Union will greatly benefit from that money flow in a most unwelcome way. Let me explain why. Unlike the United States, which virtually gives arms to Israel, the Russians charge the Arabs hard currency and hard cash for the arms they sell them. This hard currency the Russians then use to buy ever more goods and services from the West, especially capital goods, and this frees Russia's internal economic resources for the gigantic arms build-up we have seen over the last eight years. Neither of these two long-term effects of our dependency on Middle East oil can be welcome to us: neither that we should pay for our oil supplies in reduced sovereignty over our own economy, nor that we should pay for them in increasing Russian weapons levels. We shall need imagination, my Lords, to get out of those dangers.
We need a settlement in the Middle East. It is easy to stand up here and preach that those embattled countries should do one thing or the other. I

607
think a long-term lasting settlement must depend on the emergence of a generation—because in Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries who can see, who can envisage, who can imagine the natural symbiosis of advanced Israeli technology and Arab resources and manpower? At the moment this is merely "pie in the sky". It really should not be any harder for them to see it than it was for Germany and France to see the very same vision in the late 1940s. What we await is the emergence of the Adenauer and the Schumann of the Middle East. In the meantime, the least that all of us can do in the highly developed modern world is to try to get a general arms embargo on both sides in order to render less likely the outbreak of a fourth war.
My Lords, the energy problem, viewed over a period of perhaps 100 years, is among one of the most serious challenges mankind has yet had to face—in my view, about equal to that posed by nuclear weapons. Essentially the question is which of two courses civilisation will follow. The first course supposes that new sources of energy are successfully brought into play; for instance, fusion, solar, geothermal and breeder reactors. If our population increase levels off, and if social justice is adopted world wide, our race may then continue well. The second course supposes that no new energy source is found, so that after the period of rapid financial growth, which has been taking place since the Industrial Revolution, energy sources run out and civilisation gradually drops back again, with little possibility of a second chance. So, of course, does population, not by the means we wish but by starvation, war, plunder and so on.
The solution, if it exists, the way to hit the first course, will involve massive technology and very difficult science pursued over many decades. All the short, medium and long term alternatives to oil involve high technology: for example, the use of tar, sand or oil shales; the production of oil from coal, or hydrogen or methane from nuclear energy; the safe use of fission reactors, nuclear fusion, whether magnetic or laser induced; the use of solar energy, geothermal energy, and so on. Therefore I
608
submit that the current tendency to play down science and technology in the universities and to reduce Government establishments capable of pursuing long-term work will, if it is persisted in much longer, prove catastrophic, or nearly so.
Whichever way it goes, the favourable course will require a radical change in our sources of energy supply over the next few decades. This will mean that we need highly-trained scientific and industrial staff as well as managers to bring these sources into operation. Since it takes many years to build up such a potential, we have to begin encouraging it straight away by training energy scientists and technologists in the universities and making sure that there are jobs available for them to go to so that they are not lost while we sort this thing out. They must be ready before we even know precisely the right answer.
The timescale for bringing in a new energy source is very long indeed, so long-term planning is needed but allowing for options at each stage. The current Atomic Energy Authority forward look extends up to 2050. Let us look back for a moment. Fission was discovered in 1939, but we do not expect a massive build-up of nuclear energy generation until about 1980, with full effect only by 2000 A.D. That is sixty years. The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction was discovered in the early 1930s, but the A.E.A. currently estimates that fusion reactors will take over, if indeed they are successful, only between 2010 and 2030. That is nearly 100 years. Our national planning machinery is not up to this sort of timescale. It involves closed-door decisions by civil servants and a limited number of advisers chosen by the civil servants. It is a truism that bad science and bad decisions thrive on secrecy. Because the problems are so complex, and the consequences of error so tremendous, there should be a much more open discussion in which all qualified people can take part, so that errors can be more easily detected in advance and so that there is more public understanding of the course adopted and public commitment to it. The United States is rather better at this sort of thing than we are, since the reports of Congressional investigating committees contain certain detailed technical arguments and are freely published. Ours, on the whole, do not

609
contain much—they are freely published but they do not contain much technical argument.
To take one familiar British example, we have had three investigating committees on fusion research: one which recommended a cut-back, one which recommended maintaining research at cutback level, and then one which recommended an expansion. None of those reports has been published—at least I assume there have been reports. There have certainly been changes of policy, and they must have been based on something. Some of the planning decisions which have been taken have been obviously wrong. For example, it should have been clear to everybody that a continued switch to oil would put the United Kingdom and Europe, and indeed Japan, in the very dangerous position where we are now. The national strategy should have dictated a much bigger investment in the success of the Magnox reactor stations, since the extra cost to the consumer, compared to the cost of oil, or of coal, or of advanced gas-cooled reactors, or even compared to breeders, was always quite small.
It is said that the C.E.G.B. ground rules require that the cost of the oil and the coal to fuel each new power station throughout its life should be estimated at current prices; that is, prices in the year in which the decision is being taken. This is absurd. If a realistic assumption had been made of the likely rises of oil and coal prices over the current decades, the nuclear power stations would probably always have had the advantage. What happened instead was that the A.E.A. was forced into devoloping a whole series of different designs in order to bring the generating cost down by fractions of a penny, so as to compete on the basis of those ground rules—which they have, in fact, succeeded in doing. But the difference between the various designs, in terms of the cost to the consumer, was very small compared to the inflationary increase in the price of electricity even in one single year. Another unfortunate decision has been the run-down of the Atomic Energy Authority itself by a few per cent. each year in order to diversify an increasing part of its work on to new programmes, on the ground that most of the reactor problems for which the Autho-
610
rity was originally set up have been solved and can now safely be left to industry.
First, the rundown has meant that it has been impossible to recruit new young staff, which in turn has reacted back on to the universities, and even to the schools, so that atomic energy is regarded as an old industry even before it has really started. Secondly, the Atomic Energy Authority's Research Group has been forced to concentrate on cash-earning projects in order to remain what is called viable, and has to build up to an income of £5 million a year from its source by about 1975. Naturally, this is an immensely difficult task, and a great deal of management attention has been devoted to it, with some success. But this is at the expense of work on reactor design and on reactor safety. Is this desirable? Here I think we can see the effect of that famous customer/contractor principle, according to which the Government have seen fit to reform the research structure of the country, and which will run us into more and more trouble as we go along.
This brings me, my Lords, to the great question of reactor choice. We have violent public dispute here, and I do not want to get too deeply into it. I am not qualified to sit in judgment on the Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on this matter, but this I do say: it is clear, reasonable and coherent. The Government's comments on it, on the other hand, published last month, are very cagey indeed. They are as empty of reasoning as they are of conclusion. But, still, this is only the beginning of the age of Parliamentary and public contribution to great technological decisions, and perhaps the Government will in due course learn to come cleaner about this sort of thing. I certainly have high hopes of the renewed sessions of that Select Committee this week and next.
My Lords, I had planned to speak about the dangers which are alleged to exist in the light water reactor which it is said we are now contemplating buying from the United States. Perhaps I should touch on it for a moment. This is a new animal, and a very big one—much bigger than anything we have. The trouble about it is that it is inherent in its nature that you cannot put a figure on the risk

611
of failure without testing it in a manner which would completely destroy the reactor you tested, which would be many millions of pounds down the drain, and might risk the very disaster the likelihood of which you are trying to assess. This is a difficulty. Now what are we talking about? We are talking about the total melt-down of an L.W.R., and if it were to happen—everybody agrees that the likelihood is extremely small, though we can put no figure on it—it would involve the release of enough radioactivity to kill many hundreds of thousands of our citizens, and would involve the write-off geographically of a whole region for many decades.
Let us look at the insurance situation for a moment, because this, I think, is a good guide in these cases. At present in regard to the Magnox stations the Act requires the licensee—that is, the C.E.G.B. —to cover £5 million of the risk in the open market, and the Government carry the rest—nominally £25 million. That £5 million is paid for at a premium of about 2·7 per cent. a year, or sometimes higher. On the other hand, the Government's guarantee is a hypothetical tax on the people. If, after an accident, payments have to be made exceeding £5 million, the taxpayer forks out.
Now let us consider the light water reactor—several hundred thousand dead, and a region written off; an unknown risk of this happening, although little likelihood. What value should we put on such an accident? Certainly many thousands of millions of pounds. What part of the insurance will fall to the free market? What part will fall to the Government and to the taxpayer? This must be publicly understood and publicly debated. For my part, all my fears about light water reactors would be laid at rest if the Government made the licensees go to the market for the full value of all the risk—absolute liability covered—and confined their attention merely to ensuring that this cover had been obtained. In this field, as in others, such a policy would quickly produce the optimum blend of safety and economy.
In the meantime, my Lords, there seems to be good reason to order one or two more Magnox stations while we carefully consider the future. It is not as
612
though we could buy light water reactors at the moment. The Government inspectorate, which has to judge the safety of each new reactor system, has not yet received even a design. It has only a vague idea of what is proposed. It is obvious that when it is received a very long time must be spent in discussion and meditation before the safety all-clear can be given. If it is suggested that the idea of ordering more Magnox stations is putting the clock back, I would only say that some clocks run fast, and those in whose interests it is that this clock should gain are very powerful indeed. I do not know whether last Sunday's Press report is true, but if it is, I would only say that an interest which would allow an American President—any American President—to praise the safety and reliability of a reactor two and a half miles from his home three weeks after it had broken down, would do anything.
It must also be an open question whether civilisation can survive on a fission economy which involves large quantities of plutonium distributed throughout the world so that relatively I any country will be able to make nuclear weapons, together with large quantities of long-period fission products. For this reason, we really ought to have a considerable step-up of fusion work comparable with what is going on in America. Yet again, we do not even know whether fusion itself will prove successful, and therefore a great deal more effort ought to be concentrated on solar and possibly geothermal power. There is little enough of that effort at the moment.
My Lords, after the excitements of oil and nuclear energy it is usually reassuring to get back to our own old domestic friend, coal. Not so at the moment. This is not the time to get into the dispute about the miners' wages. We nearly did that in Monday's debate on the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill in this House, and they did it in the other place yesterday.
LORD BLYTON: And we will here to-day!
LORD KENNET: My noble friend is getting into it to-day, but I do not want to do so at the moment. I only want to make two points at this stage. First of all, I hope that the Government will

613
remember that coal is nationalised not in order to give them a captive enemy with whom to joust for the control of wages, but because it is so important that the mines should no longer be left in private hands. That is just a thought. My second point is this. Will the Government please keep reviewing the level of foreign investment allowed to the National Coal Board? Is it not perhaps strange that in the new Europe, with free capital movement, there should still be restrictions on investment in this capital industry, which is the largest coal industry in Europe and is now demonstrably the industry of the future?
Lastly, my Lords, to relate all these problems we really do need a National Energy Commission. In the debate in February I was among those who argued for a body with powers. On reflection, I have changed my view about that. I think it would be best to leave the powers where they are, with the Secretary of State, or, as my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, perhaps with a separate Minister of Fuel; but to leave them with the Cabinet. In my view this is right. I think the Commission should have four functions: first, to collect information and to diffuse it; secondly, to co-ordinate existing research and to commission more; thirdly, to carry out cost comparisons within and between the various energy producing sectors, using a wide spectrum of assumptions and interpretations, both those which are enjoined by present law and custom and those which would require statutory and administrative changes; and fourthly, to put to the Government, Parliament and the public from time to time a spectrum of alternative energy policies for discussion, and the adoption of one of them.
Naturally, a corresponding organ of the European Community should be created just as soon as possible thereafter, or perhaps even before. Why wait? If such a thing had been in existence now we might have been spared the absurdity of seeing our brave new Europe saddled with two separation industries instead of the single one we need if we are to cut the painter of dependence on America, with the Anglo-German-Dutch Urenco and the French national Eurodif. Beyond that, we shall have to look to a worldwide
614
agency. There is nothing dreamy about this. We already have a world atomic energy agency, and it might be wiser in time perhaps to drop the word "atomic" from the title.
In the meantime, my Lords, I commend to the Government and to all interested parties the document, Energy for the Future, produced a few weeks ago by the Institute of Fuel. It suggests sensible, forthright and equitable solutions to most of our present problems—and if I have not already spoken for too long I should have taken pleasure in making another speech about it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.31 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised a number of interesting and thoughtful suggestions as to how we might cope with the energy crisis, and I particularly liked what he said about the change in his thinking concerning an Energy Commission. I shall return to that later, if I may, but I should now like to deal with one or two other points. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that if energy resources run out this would be on a very long time-scale, and I think we should disabuse the public of the idea that energy resources are ever going to run out. What we are going to face is the problem of ever-increasing costs, as supplies I become ever more difficult to obtain. This can be seen in the case of oil, where we have already thoroughly exploited those deposits which are most geologically accessible. We are now moving into the waters of the Continental Shelf at depths of up to 100 metres in the North Sea, and companies are speaking of exploring the Continental Slope, going right down to the bed of the ocean. They are telling us that technologies will be available to do this in a few years' time, but at a much enhanced cost. We shall have to pay something in the order of magnitude of 10 dollars a barrel, as compared with the maximum price being charged by the Arab countries at the moment of just over 5 dollars a barrel. So if the increased price doubles again we might be in a position to start talking about the deep sea resources. We should not run out: we should continue to increase the price as those supplies approach exhaustion, and people begin to use less.

615
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the connection between the population and energy resources, because this is fundamental to the whole discussion. There are people in the Conservation Society, of which I have the honour to be President, who say that the growth in population is less important in considering the pressure on resources than the growth in the standard of living, particularly of peoples in the Western countries. I think that one should look at both aspects. Obviously, if you have double the number of people enjoying the same standard of living they will consume twice the amount of energy and twice the amount of materials upon which energy depends. So if one is talking about the very long time-scale referred to by the noble Lord at one point in his speech, the population question is vital, and I hope that the current energy crisis will have had an impact on the thinking of the Government in respect of the Report of the Ross Panel.
The noble Lord mentioned nuclear fusion. He quite rightly said that the Atomic Energy Authority are talking about the possibility—and I think it is only a possibility—of this becoming a practical technology some time towards the end of the first quarter of the 21st century. What they in fact say in their current annual report is that although some of the problems relating to the physics of nuclear fusion are not yet understood, when they are there will have to be an extremely large and expensive programme of engineering development, which might possibly lead to a prototype reactor by the end of the century. I think they are being optimistic in saying that commercial versions might be available in 10, 20 or 30 years, because presumably, as with all other major developments of this kind, the prototype would need to be in operation for a considerable number of years before embarking on a commercial programme. However, it emphasises that the timetable for bringing in new energy sources, together with the other ones which the noble Lord mentioned—solar and geo-thermal—is much too long to help us in the present situation, or indeed over perhaps the next 25 or 30 years.
616
It is interesting to report that even as recently as September 18, Sir Eric Drake, Chairman of British Petroleum, was saying at a national conference on world energy supplies that the words "energy crisis" ought to be banned from the vocabulary of those involved in the resolution of our present energy problems. The Prime Minister was no wiser on this because he said in reply to a letter which I wrote to him—and this was three weeks before the conflict broke out in the Middle East—in which I drew attention to the dangers and the risks of the Arabs embarking on military adventures against Israel, and also of their use of the oil weapon:
"I am not as pessimistic about our future oil supplies as you appear to be."
Well, my Lords, the crisis is here and it is going to be with us for a long time—in fact I believe until the West adjusts its whole way of life to use far less energy and to reach an equilibrium at far lower levels of consumption than anybody has yet anticipated. As Peter Paterson, the former United States Secretary of Commerce, put it so graphically:
"We've had a happy era of low costs, low risks and high benefits. But Popeye is running out of cheap spinach."
Since the end of the last War, people have been encouraged to believe by politicians, economists, newspapers and in fact all those who influence public opinion, that economic growth will continue virtually ad infinitum and that all kinds of growth are good, but that growth of material consumption is especially good, and that we have to aim at an ever-increasing amount of real disposable income in the hands of individuals. It has been assumed also that the raw materials and energy necessary to sustain these growing levels of consumption will continue to be available at roughly constant prices. The realities of the energy situation call into question the whole of this philosophy, and demands that we should give consideration to an economic policy based on a constant input of primary raw materials and energy. That does not mean to say that nothing is going to change, but that in future products would have to be designed on the basis of greater durability and lower cost in use; that maximum effort should be devoted to the re-cycling of materials (particularly those with a high energy content); that consumers should not be

617
insulated from increases in the market price of energy—and I shall come hack to that point later—and that fiscal policies should be aimed at the encouragement of economy in energy use.
I am not going to argue in detail the case for believing that we have a permanent rather than a temporary change in the situation caused by the Middle East War. I think that all that conflict has done has been to accelerate the process already taking place, albeit very gradually. At the beginning of October the OPEC countries raised their prices by an average of 70 per cent., and it would be a naive observer indeed who thought, once the Middle East conflict was resolved and peace restored, that the price increases which have been made would then be rescinded or that production cuts would be restored to the level required to satisfy growing demand. Without increasing their production at all between 1973 and 1974 the revenue of the host Governments in the Middle East will increase from 10 billion dollars in 1973 to 15 billion dollars in 1974. There is no economic reason for the Arab countries to go on increasing their output to match the potential demand of the West when they can get a 50 per cent. "hike" in their income from one year to another, while retaining production at constant levels. In fact, one could see this coming. Let me give your Lordships some earlier figures. In the autumn, 1970, the Libyan Government's take on a barrel of oil was 1·10 dollars: that has increased by October 1, this year, to 2·83 dollars. As it turned out, it would have been more profitable for the Libyans to have left that oil in the ground for the whole of those three years. Indeed, the Sheikhs have discovered, like Mr. Harry Hyams, that unused assets can appreciate faster in value than the revenue which would have been derived from them had they been brought into use—the difference being, of course, that Centre Point is still there intact after 13 years, whereas the Arabs are concerned with a wasting asset.
The total recoverable reserves in the world are pretty well known, and geologists tell us that it is very unlikely that the estimates will be amended very much in future. Mr. H. R. Warman, of B.P., has quoted a figure of 172 billion tons of crude oil available ultimately, of which 37 billion tons have already been used
618
over the last 100 years, so we have 135 billion tons of crude oil to play with and we are using it up at the rate of just over 2½ billion tons per annum. He deduces from these figures (I will not give the whole of his reasoning, because it is rather long, but it is extremely well presented in the Financial Times conference, which I warmly recommend noble Lords to read) that projected increases in the Free World demand could not be met after 1978, and that production of conventional oil—
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I fear that these estimates are made by people who have a very great interest in minimising the reserves. In fact we know that the estimates of the oil companies were usually one-tenth of the real out-turn in the end. For instance, we know that this happened in the case of the West Pennsylvanian oil field in the last century; it happened in the Texas oil field, and it is happening now in the oil fields under the sea, where the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who began by quoting 25 million, being very moderate, is now up to 70 million—and no doubt by prodding he will come to 200 million.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I think, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. There has in the past been a substantial degree of underestimation. But the examples he quotes prove the point that this has generally been applicable to the United States producers, and the under-estimation has not been nearly so significant in countries outside the United States. I believe there were very good reasons why there could have been a more substantial degree of under-estimation in the United States than elsewhere in the world. But if we take the North Sea (though I do not want to be diverted on to that), I agree with the noble Lord that estimates have continued to increase—
LORD BALOGH: In Arabia, too.
LORD AVEBURY: I am quite prepared to believe that by 1985 we shall be producing something like 250 million tons a year from the North Sea, a figure which has been quoted by my friend Professor Peter O'Dell, who is known to the noble Lord as a considerable expert on these matters. That figure is a great deal higher than anything the Government have given us so far.

619
But even if we could produce 250 million tons a year from the North Sea, that of course includes the Norwegian sector, and it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the Norwegians will bring all their oil ashore in the United Kingdom. They are thinking very carefully about means of bridging the trough so that they can lay pipelines to the Norwegian mainland; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, will agree that even if they do land it all in this country we have not a pre-emptive right to that oil. It would be perfectly possible for them to export it to other countries. But supposing we could use all of it (and I am sorry for this rather long diversion into which the noble Lord has tempted me), then it might possibly cover the whole consumption of the United Kingdom in the year. But if we are continuing to increase our demand for energy by 5 per cent. per annum, and we have reached the peak of North Sea production, then the trauma of the changeover to other forms of energy and of reducing our consumption according to the decline in production of North Sea oil, will be much more difficult to cope with. I am sorry that the noble Lord diverted me into a long digression on oil, but I wanted to demonstrate to the House that what we are looking at now, partly as a result of the Middle East war, would have happened sooner or later anyway and within the space of a very few years. So people turn to the alternatives. They say, "Let us imagine how we could replace the shortfall of oil from the Middle East or elsewhere by other means of energy production". And the one constantly quoted, of course, is nuclear.
My Lords, I have done some arithmetic on this. I have calculated that if energy demands were to continue increasing by 5 per cent. per annum, and nuclear energy had to meet the whole increase from 1985 onwards, there would have to be a world programme to construct 300,000 megawatts of nuclear power in one year and the cost of that capacity would exceed 150 billion dollars—figures which are so astronomical that I do not think anyone could seriously entertain them. Apart from the enormous sum of money involved, there is the question of the economic and technical capability of industry, which is certainly not up to
620
meeting a programme of that size. Nor, incidentally, does it take into account the investment that would be required upstream in mining processing and enrichment; and it ignores the frightening risk of dependence on nuclear technology to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would my noble friend give way? Could we not put that in ordinary language: that there is no hope of nuclear energy generation matching the conventional ways of generation before the end of the century or the beginning of next?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. There is no hope whatever of nuclear energy taking over the whole of the increase in the sort of levels of consumption that have been projected so far.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in the process of taking a decision on the next generation of reactors to be installed in the United Kingdom, and there are strong reasons for believing that he is being pressed by the C.E.G.B. and the Electricity Council into embarking on a programme of light water reactors. On this aspect I should like to make four points which I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will consider. First of all, their record of construction time is no better than ours. In Nuclear Engineering International for September, 1973, lead times are given as 8 to 10 years in the United States, as compared with the same period for A.G.Rs now being installed in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned also the case of San Onofre, the light water reactor in the neighbourhood of the President's Western White House, where, although the plant had broken down and was out of operation completely, the President three weeks later quoted this as an example of how splendid the light water reactor programme was. The currently operating plants in the United States are not reaching even their target figure of 75 per cent, utilisation—a figure which has already been well exceeded by the Magnox stations that have been in service in this country for some time. I think there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said: that

621
one of the alternatives we should consider is the building of more Magnox stations. At least it has been shown that they are safe and reliable. The difficulties we have had with them have now been identified and if we were to build further Magnox stations we should not make the mistake of using mild steel components in a high temperature CO2 environment, which is the reason why their output at present is reduced. There are unresolved doubts, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, about the safety of light water reactors, and these have been given a hearing at the A.E.C. Bethesda meetings. Transcripts of those proceedings are unobtainable in the United Kingdom—I have actually tried to obtain them. I do not believe that the C.E.G.B. observers who went to the United States earlier this year went into the safety considerations thoroughly enough; and certainly they did not visit the A.E.C.'s Idaho safety facility when they were there.
The fourth point I want to put to the noble Lord is very serious. It follows on what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said about had science and bad decisions thriving on secrecy. The decision that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is about to take at the end of January or the beginning of February is going to be based on confidential advice given to him by the Nuclear Power Advisory Board. I want to ask whether there is any conceivable reason why that advice should not be published, in the same way as when the C.E.G.B. first made the decision to go for the A.G.R. programme there were comprehensive figures made available to the House—I still have a copy of them at home—showing why they chose A.G.R. in preference to the alternatives that were then available. So we went a step backwards when we changed to a so-called "open Government" which is now refusing to give us the background information on which we can judge whether the decision taken by the Secretary of State is a reasonable one or not.
Some people say, "Let us think about coal as a potential replacement." They forget that it takes ten years to bring a new coalfield into operation. If they talk to the National Coal Board and the Electricity Council they will find that the rich seam which has now been discovered in Yorkshire will probably be
622
just about sufficient to counterbalance the pits that will go out of operation during the same period. We shall be extremely luck if we can maintain the output of coal over the next ten years at the level of something like 130 million tons a year. Certainly we should explore with the National Coal Board whether there is any possible means of increasing the output by fresh exploration, subsidised, if necessary, by the Government so as to lessen our dependence on oil.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me where he is going to get the miners from to produce the coal from the new coalfields?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I certainly could not tell the noble Lord from where we are going to get the miners under the present conditions. I think we ought carefully to consider whether the maintenance of this country's energy supplies is more or less important than the preservation of the Government's face over Phase 3. In my personal opinion, of the two problems we now face the energy situation is much more serious. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, shakes his head; I was about to give a reason for my assertion. If you do not have the energy, whether it be in the form of oil, coal, gas or electricity, then millions of people are not going to be able to work on production, and we might have, as I have said, a million people out of work by the end of the winter. Then Phase 3 will be of no use to the Government or the people of this country, because there will be a real decline in their standard of living as a result of that shortage of energy. I would think that this was an overriding consideration, and far more important than controlling inflation, vital though that may be.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks, in all honesty, that before he comes to this House and advocates an increase in coal production, and deplores the fact that our production is 100 million tons, he should tell the House what he said on behalf of the Liberal Party on July 18, 1967. Speaking as spokesman for the Liberal Party, he said:
"In so far as it is socially and economically practical the coal industry should be run down as fast as possible."
In order that he may check the reference, it is volume 750, column 1940 of the Commons Hansard.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am not ashamed to admit to the House and to the country that I have changed my mind.
LORD WIGG: Then the noble Lord should say so. My Lords, I agree any man has a right to change his mind; I have changed mine on occasions, and I have often backed a loser in that way. This House is a platform. What we say here goes out to the country as a whole, and one of the reasons why the Liberal Party are prospering is because they do not tell the truth. They say one thing here and a different thing in every constituency in which their speaker speaks.
LORD AVEBURY: If the noble Lord is still saying the same things that he said six years ago—and I am not surprised if he answers me that he is—that, I would say, is not a very good advertisement for his acumen or flexibility of mind. If we all thought precisely the same to-day as we did in 1967 we should have made no progress since then. I am perfectly happy to admit that the situation we were looking at in 1967 was very different, and that if we had not changed our minds since then we should be culpable. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, does not still think the same on energy policy in 1973 as he did six years ago.
We should, if it is feasible, aim at increasing the coal burning of the Central Electricity Generating Board to the 90 million tons which they have said they could achieve if it was available at the right price, and if they could be certain of delivery.
Oil shales and tar sands have also been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and theoretically there are enormous quantities of these. But the recovery rate would be low, and there are formidable technical problems in getting them out, particularly as I understand that in the case of the shales large quantities of water are required to process them, and they are located unfortunately in arid regions of the United States, such as Colorado. In the case of the tar sands the biggest deposit known is in Athabasco. It has been worked out that to extract 250 million tonnes a year from Athabasco, which is about the same amount we might expect from the North Sea in 1985, would require a work force of 100,000 men to work in the inhospitable wilds of Northern
624
Alberta. I am not at all sure that they could be persuaded to go there. It would be a slightly more difficult problem than getting miners and would require an investment of 50 billion dollars.
To sum up, my Lords, it is useless to think of making up any shortfall of crude oil by expanding the other sources of primary energy, and the only sensible policy we can adopt is strict economy in consumption. Whereas in the United States considerable thought has been given to this problem, as exemplified by the Report of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, The Potential for Energy Conservation, which contains a enormous list of things that could be done to reduce consumption in the United States, we in this country are totally unprepared. The reason for that is an organisational one: we have no body charged with the responsibility of looking at the energy scene as a whole and then coming up with recommendations on the lines of the U.S. study to which I have referred. I suggest that we begin to look at the idea of setting up an Energy Commission, along the lines of Lord Kennet's proposal. The idea of such a Commission was in fact put forward by my noble friend Lord Tanlaw in the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet referred. I suggest that it should be a Royal Commission; and I do so for several reasons. One is the it would be set up immediately by Royal Warrant, and I believe that the matter is of such urgency that we cannot wait for legislation. Secondly, there are precedents for a Royal Commission operating on a semipermanent basis, but if it were thought desirable, then a statutory body could replace it later on.
I know that Royal Commissions have been said to be a device for taking minutes and wasting years, but if in the terms of reference there were a requirement that the Royal Commission should report at regular intervals, then I think that point could be taken care of. Such a Commission would certainly have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested, adequate professional staff and it would have powers to instigate research by industry, Government research establishments and universities. And the Commission should be, I suggest, independent of any of the fuel industries and of any Government Department, so that

625
its advice would not be parti pris, as is much of the advice given to the Government at the moment by the fuel industries themselves.
Lastly, I would suggest that, if agreement could be reached between the Parties, regular debates on the Reports of the Royal Commission on energy could be fitted into the Parliamentary timetable in much the same way as the Defence Estimates and the Agricultural Price Review are at the moment. I make it clear that in suggesting the formula of a Royal Commission I am thinking of a body that will be purely advisory, rather than one having any executive responsibilities; and in this I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I will not go into the suggestions as to how the Commission's terms of reference ought to be drafted, because I have already spoken for long enough; but I hope the House will accept the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friend Lord Tanlaw have put forward. There seems to be growing support for the idea. If we do nothing else but send out a message from this House that we need a national body to give urgent consideration, not only to the situation we face now but to the long-term difficulties which will persist until the end of the century, then this debate will have been extremely useful.
4.1 p.m.
THE MINISTER OE STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, in recent weeks your Lordships have devoted a considerable amount of time on several occasions to issues in the field of energy, and in the present circumstances that is understandable and absolutely right. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing the subject before us to-day crystallised in such succinct wording: his Motion really covers the whole of our problems in a few words. It opens up issues which must be uppermost in the minds of many of us—questions such as: How bad is this winter going to be? What are the implications for the future? Above all, what ought the Government to be doing about the present about the medium-term and about the long-term problems, and what indeed can be done?—which is something we must always bear in mind.
626
The two noble Lords who have spoken so thought-provokingly and interestingly so far will forgive me, I hope, if I propose not to deal in detail with the points they have raised, which I know my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be doing later in the debate. They have both concentrated, absolutely rightly, on the long-term problems rather than the immediate situation. At the same time, before I come to that your Lordships would probably like me to give an account up to date of our immediate energy position and of the Government's thinking and proposals on the situation we face at the present time. Just to recall what has happened already, it was on October 26 that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced controls on oil exports. On November 14 orders were made under the Emergency Regulations curbing electricity demand by restricting space heating in certain premises and prohibiting display and advertising lighting. On November 19 he announced measures of oil allocation to secure a 10 per cent. reduction on last year's consumption; and other similar measures were taken.
In general, oil stocks are holding up and deliveries of crude oil to the United Kingdom in November were equal to the deliveries expected before the crisis. But as the House knows my right honourable friend had yesterday to announce the diversion of additional supplies of fuel oil to the power stations. This was made necessary by the short-fall of coal production as a result of events in the mines. This decision will of course provide greater insurance for electricity supply. But it must cause concern for fuel oil stocks in the future, and demand even greater economy in the use of electricity.
The Government have decided on a series of further economy measures. There will be new restrictions on the level of heating in all commercial premises and offices by any fuel. An Order regulating temperatures will be laid. The existing restrictions on space heating by electricity in commercial premises and offices will continue. Lighting in shops and commercial premises will also be controlled. Further savings will be achieved by switching off a proportion of light on all highways and streets, except where reduced lighting could lead to an unacceptable risk of increased

627
accidents. Substantial savings have been made in the use of oil for shipping and aviation. My right honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping will be making a Statement later this week on specific measures for aviation, including private flying.
Except when a lower limit already applies, a 50 m.p.h. speed limit will be imposed by Order on all roads including motorways. Various Government Departments will be approaching distributors to ensure the greatest economy in the use of petrol for commercial deliveries. In some areas, garages have been running out of petrol or restricting purchases. This is because some motorists have not made the economies appealed for to match the reductions in deliveries. Indeed, some motorists have increased demand for topping up at every available opportunity. Again, my right honourable friend asked everyone once more to make a special effort to economise and, in particular, not to add to the present difficulties by selfishly trying to keep tanks full to the last drop. This appeal must be heeded to enable garages to look after the needs of essential customers such as doctors, disabled drivers, and those involved in social work. The Government will continue to watch the situation extremely closely. They will take whatever further steps may be needed.
Useful savings can be made by those involved in regular deliveries of goods by reducing the frequency of their deliveries, and Government Departments concerned with distributors will be approaching them to discuss what economies can be achieved. With the present levels of our stocks of motor spirit together with the cut that has taken place of 10 per cent. on last year's consumption figures, there is no need at the present time for rationing to be introduced. In most parts of the country there have been no serious difficulties in the period since the cuts were introduced. And with a combination of both the compulsory and voluntary efforts that are made a reduction of supplies to the present levels should cause no serious problems.
The South-East of the country, in particular, as your Lordships are probably aware, has created a problem. Two fac-
628
tors emerge. Adequate supplies of petrol are available, if people will make limited cuts in their motoring and stop panic filling up of their tanks whereby people have queued for ages and then bought only one or two gallons. This has created unnecessary problems for filling stations.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, may I ask whether he is aware that some garages are now getting a delivery of two tankers a week, whereas they were getting in normal circumstances five tankers a week? This is not a reflection on the motorist; this must be a reflection on the distribution system, and it is a little unsatisfactory to say that a 10 per cent. cut is all that is necessary. In fact, garages are having a 60 per cent. cut in the supplies they receive. Might we have an assurance that this is not being done until the price of fuel goes up and the petrol distribution people will make a larger profit?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing this matter to my attention and I will certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend responsible.
The Oil Industry Emergency Committee are now operating with their own control centre. They have the task of balancing demand against available supply. I suspect it is with this body that my right honourable friend would discuss the kind of problem that has just been raised. The Committee have assured my right honourable friend that deliveries to petrol stations have been, and will continue to be, maintained to 90 per cent. of last year's figures; and action is being taken to see that petrol stations spread their opening hours so that petrol is available from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but this is really the point that is at issue and I think this is what the House wants an assurance about—that is, what actual deliveries are taking place?—because some garages are saying that they are being so under-supplied that the problem is not created by them but by lack of petrol.
Loan POLWARTH: My Lords, in the light of what both noble Lords have said about individual cases, I will ensure that this point is brought to the attention of the Committee who have given this assurance about the 90 per cent. overall.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way again for one moment? Would he make an appeal to the Members of your Lordships' House who come here in large cars, and particularly those Members of your Lordships' House, one of whom is present, who caused me to get only 50p worth of petrol? The garage proprietor told me that that particular noble Lord had stowed 200 gallons away in cans and was then reverting to a small car.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should think that allegations of that kind should be brought to the attention of the proper quarter. All I would say is that I am sure your Lordships are very well aware of the need to set a good example in economy in the use of petrol.
My Lords, if motorists will show moderation, the discomfort of queues and the difficulties of obtaining petrol should be greatly reduced. These problems are nothing compared to the personal difficulties which will arise if rationing has to be introduced. Our reserve position does nothing to suggest that the Government should now take action to ration petrol. It is vital that all concerned should continue to exercise the maximum economy in the use of all our energy resources.
So much for the immediate situation. I should like now just to look at the situation in a wider perspective. Two months ago there was very little reason to expect that we should this winter face the troubles which we are now facing. Compared with the start of previous winters the country was well placed; our stocks of coal and oil were high, coal production was beginning to level out after years of decline, the electricity supply industry was ready to meet the country's needs during the winter. On the more general level the policies of successive Governments and the decisions of consumers over the years had given us a fairly balanced four-fuel economy, with petroleum supplying just under half our needs, coal a little over a third, natural gas just over a tenth, and nuclear and hydro-electricity the remainder. In contrast with, say, 20 years before, when coal supplied nearly 90 per cent. of our energy needs, this represented a fair measure of diversification and, therefore, of security.
630
Against this background, I do not think our present situation was to be expected, nor do I think it could reasonably have been avoided. It is essentially the product not of one factor but of a series of adverse factors: the war in the Middle East and the decision of Middle East producers to use oil as a weapon in their political struggles; the simultaneous decision of the miners to ban overtime and challenge our Phase 3 policy—and I totally differ from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the relative importance of these matters; we consider that the Phase 3 policy is vital—and also the industrial action by the electricity power engineers. Any of these factors on its own would have proved difficult. Taken together their cumulative effect is extremely serious.
Even if one is wise after the event, if one looks back over the events leading up to our present situation it is hard to see what policies could have been followed (short of giving in to the pressures upon us) to protect us more against the difficulties we now face. The alternative to diversity is concentration. But suppose earlier Governments had concentrated much more on a particular fuel, should we be better off? If the chosen fuel had been coal, the oil difficulty would now be less but the effects of the miners' overtime ban would be worse. If we had decided on a large crash programme of nuclear power then, with the difficulties that we know and of which we have heard we should still have problems, so we should not necessarily be better off. We should of course have been considerably exposed on whatever was the chosen fuel.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will the Minister give way? Is he suggesting that after years of propaganda by the miners to the effect that too much was being put in the "oil basket" the Government are justifying their decisions now that we are being blackmailed and our foreign policy is being dictated by the oil sheikhs?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, that was not what I was suggesting. I believe that the flexibility and security which have been sought through diversity—and this has not been the policy of only one Government—have been the right objectives. That diversity does not and cannot insure against the consequences of several

631
things happening at once. For the same kind of reason, any policy for the future must necessarily leave the country with some degree of vulnerability to pressures of one kind or another. We cannot legislate or plan this fact of life away. What we can and must do is to find our way wisely through the present difficulties, guard against the risks of repetition for the future, and make sure that if difficulties do arise again we shall be able to do everything possible to minimise their impact on our way of life.
I have already dealt with the first half of this task, namely, our present difficulties. I should now like to turn to the future and to begin by considering what our objectives should be. I think the long-term objective of the Government could be stated specifically as follows: to make the best use of the United Kingdom's indigenous resources and, where imports are needed, to do everything possible to ensure that they are obtained on satisfactory terms as to both price and security. Clearly there is a lot to be explained in that, but before I go on to elaborate it—
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He has given a definition of the Government's policy which is concerned entirely with supply. Is he saying that the Government's policy still completely ignores the factor of demand and that this need not be taken into account in the long-term future?
LORD POLWARTH: No, my Lords, of course the pattern of demand must and will be taken into account. But may I stress some of the key factors which have to be taken into account in formulating future plans? The most important element is the sheer uncertainty within which we are working. As some of your Lordships have already pointed out, the timescales involved are very long. We could not reasonably be expected to know, two months ago, how things would go: how can we hope to know now what the situation will be 20 years hence? I am not arguing that we should not make forecasts or economic analyses or undertake technological research—far from it; these are essential—but I am pointing out that we must be prepared for the unknown. Before the present difficulties
632
arose we were indeed prepared for some contingency of the kind by our policy of diversification, our stock-building and our contingency planning; and just in the same way our decisions for the future must allow us to cope with whatever turns up.
Above all, as has often been pointed out, we must be prepared for the fact that having made our best predictions we shall very likely be proved wrong. That is the lesson of the past. It is not particularly pessimistic and it does not mean, "Do nothing". But it does, I believe, rule out of court the proposals of those who would like us to make nice, neat plans for energy supplies, with fixed targets years ahead and a precise description of how we are going to get there. We probably all long for something of the kind, but in realistic terms it is "not on", as I am sure any of your Lordships know who have experience of planning investment in industry and the great difficulties of forecasting the needs in the long term ahead.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? In case he is implying that suggestions of this kind in regard to forecasting and predictions have come from these Benches, may I say that that is not true. All we have asked for is that the Government shall consider the establishment of an Energy Commission, and we still ask the Government seriously to consider that and to give us an indication in the course of this debate.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Lord has said and I shall come to that point a little later on. There are those who have been representing that we can deal with this matter by nice fixed plans ahead, but I am not suggesting that it was noble Lords on that Bench.
What, however, is feasible is that we should build as much flexibility as possible into our policy making: flexibility as to the fuels we use and their sources, flexibility as to how we deploy them once we acquire them, flexibility in our decisions and their timing. Policy making in the field of energy must be a continuous, rolling programme which never finishes. There is no point in cutting off options needlessly. The development of our own indigenous resources is central to the Government's policy. Long before the

633
present difficulties we had taken great steps to achieve it. In the United Kingdom we are very used to comparing our position with that of other industrial countries and in many fields, and coming to the conclusion that we are worse off than the rest. Whatever the truth of that may be in other things, our position on energy resources certainly does not justify such a comparison. On the contrary, we are considerably better off than most other industrialised countries.
North Sea oil is probably the most dramatic example of that. I ask your Lordships to remember that it is only two years ago that we knew we had oil in commercial quantities and—who knows?—we may still not know the full extent of our good fortune. But the Government are determined to make the most of this very valuable asset. We may regret that the discoveries were not made a few years earlier so that oil was flowing now; nevertheless, the benefits in creating jobs, in saving foreign exchange, in orders for our industry, in revenue to the Exchequer, will be very great.
Secondly, we should not overlook or underestimate the very great technological feat which bringing this oil ashore represents. We sometimes hear North Sea oil being discussed as though all that was needed was to go out to sea with a bucket and haul it up. It is not a bit like that. Getting oil from water of this depth, in these weather conditions, has never been achieved before. I should like to pay tribute to what is being done, not least by those working on rigs 100 miles and more out in the North Sea in Force 10 gales such as we have been experiencing in the last few weeks. This is a vast technological problem, and it is straining our resources to the full, but we are determined that any removable obstacles to the speedy arrival of the oil ashore will be removed. We have asked the companies to let us know of every impediment to the speedy arrival of the oil so that we may do what we can to help them.
There is also North Sea gas. The House knows well what has happened in the short space of 10 years. The reserves are substantial, particularly if we take into acount the British Gas Corporation's agreement to buy gas from the Friggfield. So far as the Norwegian part is concerned, this is still subject to the
634
consent of the Norwegian Parliament. Still further finds of gas may be made there, either as a result of the exploration for oil in the North Sea or in the Celtic Sea where exploration has just begun.
May I now refer to the coal industry. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the Government can take considerable credit for what has been achieved as a result of the Coal Industry Act. We have arrested the run-down of the industry; we have made provision for financial reconstruction, for the write-off of past debt, and for grants which are large by any standard. We are now discussing with the National Coal Board the possibilities of obtaining extra output in the light of their exploration programme.
LORD BLYTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt. In view of the statement he has just made, in which he said the Government were obviating the run-down of the industry, how does the noble Lord square that with the fact that, week by week, manpower has considerably been reduced?
LORD POLWARTH: Of course there are problems and difficulties. We know there are problems over manpower, but the fact remains that the industry is still recruiting effectively, even if the numbers leaving it in recent times have been greater than we would like. I think the noble Lord will be speaking later; he will then have an opportunity to develop his views, so perhaps he will allow me to finish my speech.
Finally, there is the nuclear power position, to which both previous speakers devoted their attention. This is indeed a complicated subject, on which they are both better qualified to speak than I am. This is a very complex field and I do not intend to go into it in detail. I know that later on my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will deal with some of the specific points raised by the previous speakers. At present, I think nuclear power is providing some 3 per cent. of total energy requirements. It is of great and growing importance to our long-term position. From the mid-1980s on, it will become much more important as a source of energy. I think I will leave it at that for now.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, before my noble friend finishes what he

635
has to say on the energy problem, could he tell us anything about hydro-electric power? After all, we are a country surrounded by water, and we have a lot of water in our country. I should have thought it would be possible to harness some of the tidal races that we get around our coasts. I am thinking particularly of the West coast of Scotland, where several tidal races come between two narrow points. There is tremendous free power in these tidal races. Could we not harness that power, and also power from similar waters?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am quite sure the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will be looking at the possibilities for further hydro-electric schemes, although we must remember that water in Scotland can sometimes be scarce as well as plentiful. That we know only too well from last summer. Tidal power is one of the matters on which I am sure research is being done and will be done in future. But I will note my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing's remarks and pass them on to the appropriate quarter.
I have outlined the position on the main fuels which we see meeting our energy demands in the next couple of decades. I have pointed out that in particular we are seeking to make the best use of our indigenous resources, and we are indeed fortunate in the extent of these. But I should not like noble Lords to think that this good fortune leads us into complacency. Like the rest of the world, we must always be looking to the long term. The suggestion of an Energy Commission has been made once more by both previous speakers. One noble Lord suggested that it take the form of a Royal Commission. I was interested to hear the noble Lord's change of view about the nature of such a body, and his present view as to whether it should be advisory rather than executive, a view held by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well. This helps to guide us a little more as to what is in people's minds. All I will say now is that we should be interested to hear the views of others in this debate as to the function and form of such a body.
Looking ahead is always extremely difficult, but it is clear enough that the world must face a growing tightness in
636
fossil fuels, especially oil. This must be so, even taking into account all the large "unconventional" reserves in the way of oil shales and tar sands which have already been mentioned, and in the deeper waters that are now being explored. Like the rest of the world we shall have to adapt to that situation. It is not one in which energy is running out and the world is running down—I am sure of that.
Beyond the world reserves of fossil fuels, there are, as we have been reminded this afternoon, other sources of energy such as thermal nuclear power which is already being exploited, whatever the difficulties. The fusion process, if it can be made a practical proposition, offers a virtually unlimited energy source. There are "renewable" sources, such as solar and tidal power, which have been mentioned by my noble friend behind me, and geo-thermal energy. Research is being carried on in many quarters, but we do not face an imminent crisis of the exhaustion of reserves. The world has the time and the technological resources to solve the problems of the long term future, but adapting to an energy base that does not include easily available oil is a human and political problem as well as a technological one, and will need much statesmanship. Again, this problem needs time to solve, but we can do it if we set our minds to it. The world is beginning to tackle it now as a result of the current oil difficulties and, with planning, this is something we must always keep firmly in sight.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COUNCIL MEETINGS
4.28 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I think this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about matters considered in the Council of the European Communities since I last reported to the House on October 24.

637
"There have been six meetings—the Foreign Ministers met twice, the Finance Ministers twice, and the Ministers of Agriculture and Transport once each.
"My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture has already reported to the House on the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on November 19 and 20.
"At the meeting of Transport Ministers on November 22 there was a preliminary exchange of views on the Commission's recent document on the development of the common transport policy, which was the main item of the agenda.
"For the rest, agreement was reached on the substance of a measure of liberalisation in international road haulage, on a small change in consultation procedures, and on the need for uniform enforcement of the rules restricting lorry drivers' hours.
"Lorry weights and dimensions and the increase in the new member countries' share of the Community quota for road haulage were further discussed without conclusions being reached.
"The Foreign Ministers met on November 5 and 6 and discussed a wide range of subjects affecting the Community's relations with almost all other parts of the world.
"These subjects were further discussed at the Foreign Ministers meeting on December 3 and 4.
"Ministers have now agreed on the content of trade agreements to be concluded with Brazil and with India.
"The Council made progress on agreeing improvements for 1974 on the generalised scheme of preferences which it offers to imports from developing countries, and on its offer of tariff concessions to third countries under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as a consequence of the enlargement of the Community.
"Further discussion took place on the mandate for the Commission to negotiate agreements with certain Mediterranean countries. In the expectation that such agreements are unlikely to be concluded by the yearend, a satisfactory understanding was reached on the handling of interim arrangements.
638
There was a detailed discussion of the main aspects of the Regional Development Fund to be set up by January 1, 1974, as provided for in last year's Summit meeting in Paris. This resulted in a clarification of the position of the various Member States which should help in finalising the arrangements to be concluded by the year-end.
At their meeting on November 9 the Finance Ministers discussed the progress of the Community's anti-inflation programme and the move to a second stage of economic and monetary union. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the Finance Ministers agreed a resolution on short-term action against inflation. They also made useful progress in further consideration of economic and monetary union and agreed to resume the discussion on December 17.
"Opportunity was taken of the meetings yesterday and the day before to have an extensive exchange of views on the Community's current energy problems. It was recognised that the united approach to a political solution in the Middle East still constituted the primary field for Community action. It was also agreed that the consultative arrangements instituted at meetings in November should be maintained."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I must thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his good intentions in repeating a Statement which really puts the House in an impossible position. I do not blame him. It simply is not possible, with a Statement full of so many pregnant but totally uninformative expressions, to discuss it at all; and since we have a very lengthy debate ahead of us, with a long list of speakers, I do not propose to attempt to do so.
There were a number of blinding shafts of invisible light which on cross-examination might have given us some answer about what was in the minds of Ministers on this, that and the other subject. I make no criticism of the noble Lord, because I am sure he would agree, as the whole House would agree, that we cannot go on like this, and that

639
to-morrow's debate, which is so important for establishing proper Parliamentary concern and, if necessary, influence over what goes on in the Common Market, takes on an even greater importance. Therefore, I will ask the noble Lord no questions at all, but I thank him for his good intentions.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I also thank the Leader for reading out this Statement, which I myself find singularly unilluminating. In spite of the good example set by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I would ask one question, or perhaps two. What exactly is meant by a "measure of liberalisation in international road haulage"? Cannot he just tell us the sort of thing that is meant by that; and, if they have agreed on this point, tell us what it is? I resist the temptation to ask other questions, but there is one important matter which arises obviously. That is the statement about the possible setting up at the end of this year of a Regional Development Fund and the statement at the end about coming into the second stage of economic and monetary union. Are we to understand that these two matters are linked in any way, or is it still the Government's intention that the Regional Fund must be set up before the agreement on monetary union is forthcoming?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I appreciate that the repeating of Statements in your Lordships' House is often unsatisfactory. It may be particularly so for those who are taking part in a debate, because it interrupts the flow of the debate. To-day I am repeating a Statement made by a Minister who was present at meetings in Brussels and I was not. Therefore what I can tell the House of those meetings is, of course, limited by the information I have been able to obtain in advance of repeating the Statement. However, there has been consistent Parliamentary pressure in both Houses for Ministerial Statements to be made after these meetings of Ministers; and it is in response to this legitimate demand of Parliament that Statements have been made in both Houses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the proposal to set up a specialist committee of this House on European
640
Community affairs (which we shall be debating to-morrow, on my Motion on the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King) may go some way to help achieve a more satisfactory situation in the future.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I understand that the further discussions on the Regional Development Fund are likely to take place in Copenhagen when the Heads of State and Heads of Government meet there on December 14 and 15. Finance Ministers will still be working on monetary union, and I believe the House would not want me to enter into any exposition on what is meant by "liberalisation of international road haulage," even if I were in a position to do so.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, before we leave the question of discussions in Brussels, may I say that it is certainly very satisfactory to know that these discussions have been so wide-ranging. May I ask the Government whether we may take it that the functions of O.E.C.D. are still being made use of, seeing that so many of the problems which afflict us—energy, financial, monetary, resources problems—affect the Americans, Canadians, Australians, Japanese and other countries which are in O.E.C.D. but are outside the European Economic Community.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we do appreciate the valuable opportunities offered in operating through the machinery of the O.E.C.D.

ENERGY SUPPLIES AND POLICY
4.37 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to make a Personal Statement? I have been told that in the course of the political argument in my speech just now I inadvertently used a phrase which gave personal offence and distress to Members of your Lordships' House. I did not know that it would; I did not mean it to, and I ask your Lordships to accept my apology for having used that phrase.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord,

641
Lord Kennet, for having introduced this very important subject for debate. I myself prefer to refer to our topic not as a "crisis", but as the present situation with regard to our energy supplies. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, what is now a crisis is in fact our abrupt acceleration into a position where all can now read what has long been written on the wall. It is years since people wrote that one day we would need to consider whether the use of oil should be restricted to prime movers, or treated as a chemical raw material, as opposed to a convenient form of space heating or as fuel for generating stations. That was long before the recent war in the Middle East. I myself was guilty of such writing in the mid-'fifties.
I draw several lessons from the present situation. First, nothing will ever be the same as before, whatever happens in the resolution of our immediate difficulties. We cannot rest assured that they will not recur. Whatever happens now, therefore, we have to diversify our energy supplies. That, I think, is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was making. The war accelerated our present situation; it did not create it. Regardless of what oil reserves there are—and there has been discussion on this point—until the world is one, we in this country dare not allow irregularity in the distribution of raw materials in the earth's crust to determine the progress and spread of Western civilisation.
Coal powered the Industrial Revolution and the growth of industry in all countries well into this century. In the latter part of our own century we turned from coal to the more convenient fuel represented by crude oil; and the United States of course, as we know full well, to the use of natural gas—natural gas provided so cheaply that it distorted the cost pattern of many products. At about the same time, we started to exploit hydroelectric power; I wish there were more available in this country so as to satisfy the noble Lord who mentioned this subject. More recently we have rested major hopes on the promise of nuclear energy.
We ran down our coal mines, but coal mining now needs to be encouraged. That, as I understand it, is why the Government introduced the 1973 Coal Industry Act, which keeps open the option of
642
a large industry for the future. We were over-optimistic in our estimates of both the potential speed at which nuclear power stations can be brought into operation and the cost of nuclear power. To-day we are cautious—perhaps over-cautious. No significant allowance was made for North Sea gas—and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who knows a great deal about this subject is to speak later—in the calculations which led up to the 1967 White Paper on Fuel Policy, and which at the time appeared to provide a sound basis for the policies we were then following but which, as has turned out, and because of over-optimism about the nuclear component, expedited the rundown of coal. If anything is to be learnt from the present situation it is that we need to be flexible in our policies for the future. And that, too, was Lord Polwarth's point.
The second lesson that I would draw is that however difficult it is not to abide by conventional discounted cash-flow sums, we cannot approach the problem of investment in energy, and equally in the environment, by accountancy principles which relate to to-day's costs and values. This has also been shown to be true, as we know, of the nation's water resources, land resources, and even of its resources of clean air. We dare not live just for the day, and expect at the same time to deal with matters which affect the conditions of life to-morrow. My third lesson would be that we have paid far too little attention in the past to conservation and the waste of energy—two matters which have not so far been sufficiently emphasised to-day. My fourth point is that, whatever we do in overcoming our immediate problems and in preparing for the decade ahead, we must have the factor of safety in mind, but safety assessed rationally and not in an atmosphere of hysteria.
My Lords, let me now amplify what I have said about my four lessons. In this country we have little opportunity for diversifying our sources of energy. We have been blessed by the discovery of natural gas and oil in the bed of the North Sea, and if all goes well we can be self-sufficient in our demands for these commodities by the mid-1980s. I am one of those who live in that hope. But, in the light of our present difficulties the 'eighties are far away. None the less,

643
we have to push on now with further exploration, not only in the North Sea, but as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, in the Irish Sea as well; and, what is more, on our own land mass, in spite of the objections people have raised to the simple process of exploration, a process which causes practically no environmental disturbance at all. I shall not refer to coal; others who are going to speak in this debate are much better qualified than I am to do so. But I must refer, however inexpert my knowledge, to the question of the rational growth of nuclear power, about which there has been so much discussion in recent months, and to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his opening speech, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is a matter about which we understand that the Government are due to make an announcement in the early part of the new year.
Certain figures need to be borne in mind. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with statistics, but let me remind you of the amount of power that the Central Electricity Generating Board commands now. The output capacity of our generating stations at the present moment is about 65,000 megawatts, and the simultaneous maximum load which is met, and maximum potential demand, is 46.000 megawatts. About 20 per cent. of the system is oil-fired. Since stations have to be taken out of service periodically, the C.E.G.B. holds that a plant margin of 20 per cent. is necessary over the whole system. I understand that at the present moment the figure is somewhat higher than 20 per cent., and I also know that there are those who argue that the C.E.G.B. could make do with a lower margin. Whatever the figure is, it is going to determine our investment policy in generating stations. At the present moment, new generating plant equivalent to a further 12,500 megawatts is under construction to make allowances for the growth in demand. It is, however, well known that the estimates made by the C.E.G.B. at the end of the 1960s for future demand were on the generous side, and we also now know that the demand for electric power does not run in parallel with the growth of the G.N.P.
I mention these figures because they determine the urgency with which we
644
have to decide about the new nuclear power plants that should be planned to meet our estimates of what will be required. A refinement in forecasting methods is under way. I hope that it is successful. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that we cannot legislate for Middle East wars, nor can we legislate for industrial unrest. We can regret these things, but they happen. And they show just how frail technological forecasting can be. Until we are satisfied with our estimates of future demand, it is going to be very difficult to challenge the view (and some vast figures have been quoted), that by the year 2000 100,000 megawatts of new plant will be required in this country. We cannot argue about such estimates, simply because we cannot make statements which depend on the unknown variables that may come into future sums, and sometimes make our present sums not worth the paper on which they are written.
I also understand—and I appreciate this fully—that we cannot wait, and that the issue now is that of giving the go-ahead to a definite number of new nuclear plants as soon as possible—recognising that it will take 10 years before any one of them becomes operational. Noble Lords have already referred to different varieties of nuclear reactor. I have followed the debate closely so far and have read a great deal about the subject, but I must immediately admit my total incompetence to discuss the technicalities of this matter. I do not know, for example, what reactor we should go for. I do not know whether it should be the steam generating heavy water reactor (reference has been made to that) or the high temperature gas-cooled reactor, or some other reactor, or the American light water reactor, to which reference has also been made. And may I correct a remark which was made about what President Nixon is reported to have said about an L.W.R. near his provincial White House? He did not say how good it was; he said how safe it was. If, in fact, he said it at a moment when it was shut down, then it must have been very safe.
There are Members of your Lordships' House who are unable to be here to-day and whom I do not see on the Benches on either side, but who are really competent to talk about this question, to tell

645
us what is likely to be the best reactor from the technical point of view. What I know—and I know this from many years of discussion of this subject—is that we cannot push technology too hard and too fast in this field. That is something that has to be avoided. At the same time, we cannot go on deferring decisions about new reactors because of arguments which are unlikely to be settled until the plants are actually built. Unlike the United States, we cannot turn to oil shales or tar sands as a major source of oil. Reference has been made to both of these sources. We should, however, satisfy ourselves in this country that there are no reserves of geothermal energy which could be tapped. Noble Lords may be aware that there was recently a chance find of hot water in a borehole under Paris—water which is now used for heating 1,500 living units. That is merely an indication of the present uncertainty. I should therefore like to ask the Government whether or not the Institute of Geological Sciences should be asked as a matter of urgency to investigate the heat flow pattern under the United Kingdom. In counting the cost, we can note that more than 20 bore-holes for such an investigation could be sunk for one that is put down in the North Sea.
Let me now turn to the question of cost—a matter which has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet; and I know that one or two noble Lords who are economists are likely to refer to this matter later in the debate. I appreciate the immense political difficulties of turning away from the normal kind of costing when one discusses large investments, but in looking to the future of our energy supplies it is essential never to forget that we are boxed in to a form of life which demands the liberal use of energy. It is not just our motor cars or our central heating: it is our industry, it is our agriculture, it is the whole of our urbanised civilisation which would break down unless we were assured of energy, regardless of its cost. If our urban water supplies were to become chronically polluted and poisoned, we should have to pay, whatever the cost, to make them pure. The same is true to-day of our future supplies of energy.
Now one word about conservation and waste. I should like to know that
646
in whatever research and development programme is started these matters are brought to the attention of the Government institutions concerned. We must learn to follow the right building techniques from the point of view of insulation; this matter should be dealt with more seriously than it has been in the past. Here we are likely to learn something from the Americans. I have just returned from a visit there, where I discussed energy supplies with several people who are well informed, and where I learned that they are likely to embark on a crash R. and D. programme at an estimated cost of 2 billion dollars a year for five years.
Now one word about safety. An enormous amount is being done to satisfy the requirements of safety in nuclear power stations. But we heard some hideous figures from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the thousands and thousands who would be exposed to risk should there be an accident. I should like to say here that in all my experience of public science I know of no subject which has been treated with greater responsibility by the scientists and engineers concerned. They recognise that one major disaster in a nuclear power station—and it would not matter if it was or was not ours; it could be anywhere in the world—would set back nuclear power for years. We cannot live without fuel and energy, and it is no use designing power plants which would destroy us. That is something which is fully recognised by the professionals who are engaged in work on nuclear power. What I therefore hope is that the environmental groups who have been casting doubts on nuclear power on the score of safety do not become too extreme in their demands; so deaf to technically informed opinion that they retard what might be essential in the public interest. As I said, modern society deprived of an assured supply of energy would break down. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of the fact that any deliberate and sudden change in any single clement in an ecological system could have secondary results which are neither expected nor welcome. We have only to think of D.D.T. for an illustration of that fact. But what environmentalists and ecologists also need to remember is

647
that socio-economic systems are no less sensitive to sudden change than those which are called ecological, and that any long-term disruption in our supplies of energy would in fact constitute such a sudden change.
I referred to the R. and D. programme of the United States. It is my firm belief that as we take steps to assure our own energy future, as we overcome our present difficulties, we must pay close attention to what the U.S. does in the hope that she will get out of her difficulties rapidly. The faster she does so the better for us. That emerges from some very simple figures. The total of the U.S. energy requirements in 1972, I understand, was over 1.500 million tons of oil equivalent. Nearly 50 per cent. of this was supplied by oil itself, and 30 per cent. of this oil was imported, 10 per cent. from the Middle East. Our own total energy requirement in 1972 was less than 200 million tons oil equivalent, of which 93 million tons came from imported oil. Theoretically, therefore, a 14 per cent. reduction in oil-burning in the U.S., or a 7 per cent. reduction in her total energy demand, would provide for all our present oil requirements. As is widely recognised now in the United States, natural gas, in a period of euphoria, was all but given away free, thus discouraging investment, either in new R. and D. or in other energy sources, or even in oil exploration, and also encouraging waste.
On my recent visit to the United States I was told that there was a strong likelihood that the United States would become more efficient and more economical in its use of oil and gas, and that it was certainly possible to achieve a 10 per cent. saving in energy. The figures speak for themselves. Per head of population, the United States is now expending exactly twice as much energy as we do. The scope for a reduction of 10 per cent., which would undoubtedly lighten world problems, is certainly on the cards. Furthermore, the United States has enormous resources of untapped energy. It is not just the tar sands or oil shale, to which reference has been made. Reference has also been made, I think, to some coal seams. I was told of one area where there are extensive coal seams immediately beneath the surface, 60 feet
648
thick. All that is necessary is the machinery to move this coal; but that, of course, takes time to produce.
We cannot attempt to match the United States in their R. and D. programme, but I am sure that there is a great deal that we could do. The Institute of Fuel Paper, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred, lists a number of projects at which we should look. But the question for the moment, as I said, is really one of decision. I do not like the word "crisis": I prefer to regard the present situation as one of challenge. Furthermore, when people now talk about zero economic growth because of a lack of energy, I become disturbed because the term is confused with the concept which is expressed in a book, which I am afraid I did not greatly hold with, called Limits to Growth. We are not up against any limit to growth at the present moment.
Finally, may I refer to a National Energy Commission. I have thought about this, and I wondered really whether it is the right proposal at this moment. On reflection, I am uncertain. The whole of the energy picture has too many repercussions for them all to be dealt with by a Commission which would be concerned only with energy supplies. I personally would therefore prefer to learn what the Government propose to do about the matter before giving my own view about what new machinery is called for.
4.58 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN: My Lords, it took Aberfan to make us appreciate the disastrous characteristics of colliery tips, and how we might make some use of them. It took the "Torrey Canyon" to make everybody realise that pollution was a real problem, and that we must do something about it. Now it has taken the sheikhs of Arabia to make every country in the world appreciate their dependence upon solid and liquid fuels. In this situation it is therefore to be feared that when it is resolved, as I hope it soon will be, we might sit back again and complacently pay lip service to researches for energy. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that we should reach out and diversify, and snatch and make good any possible source of new energy.
My Lords, it seems to me that if we take a rather calm look at the energy pattern at

649
the present time it is very encouraging to find that we are only 45·6 per cent. dependent upon petroleum, whereas the figure for Denmark, for example, is 93 per cent. and that for Italy is 79 per cent., and even for France, apparently, it is 68 per cent. On the other hand, when we consider the amount of petroleum we use for generating electricity and consume on the roads we find that we use 19 million tons of oil in generating electricity and apparently 22 million tons on the roads. This is the kind of pattern that I think we should have constantly under review, because it is in judging this pattern that we might be able to gain the time necessary for us to bring the resources of the North Sea and the Celtic Sea into operation. But even when we have reached and achieved these bonanzas we must always be aware that they are wasting assets and that they are providing us only with another measure of time in which to gain further sources of energy.
Within the realm of wasting assets we have to face the fact that the intolerable conditions in the mines will cause human beings to leave. But so long as men are prepared to endure the environment of a mine we should use that time to think ahead and introduce as many forms of machine mining as we can devise. I think, therefore, though many may not agree, that the right note was struck by the science correspondent in the Daily Telegraph in an interview with Professor Thring of Queen Mary College, London, in which the Professor described his concept of a robot miner. He visualises:
"a smallish machine with a caterpillar tread capable of working in confined places and pulling itself up steep inclines. It would reinforce its tunnel against roof collapse and not be perturbed by coal dust, and would be impervious to poisonous gases which drive men out of the mines."
When he was asked about cost, the Professor claimed:
"If £500,000 a year were spent for 10 years I am absolutely certain you could do it."
My Lords, his timing is right and the cost is reasonable, because in 10 years' time at the present rate of wastage the mining population will be in a rather serious plight.
The steel industry, as we all know, is exceedingly sensitive to changes in the supplies of energy. The British Steel Corporation are already cutting down
650
on steel supplies for one reason; that is, the shortage of metallurgical coke; because it is not all types of coal which can be converted into coke. I therefore maintain that this critical factor should never again be allowed to interfere with our production of iron and steel provided we can devise some way to make iron and steel without using coke. One solution to this problem would be to convert coal into a liquid condition. I hasten to add that I am not talking about the hydro-generation of coal into oil. In itself that process consumes too much energy. I am talking about the conversion of coal into a liquefied condition, or at worst an emulsified condition. This is now conceivable because in the last decade we have been provided by the instrument makers with new devices which enable us to look into the heart and structure of coal. Now we can see quite clearly what coal really is. It is petroleum fixed by particles of carbon into solidified state. So if we can break what is called the absorption coefficient between the particles of carbon and the coal, the coal will collapse into liquid. This has been done in the laboratory. In itself, this would have an enormous repercussion. It would mean that the mechanical miner, instead of digging coal, would scrape the coal to powder and would transfer the powder to pipes. The powder would be fluidised through the mine up to the surface into the liquefying plant and from there is could be piped again to the centres where it was needed. That would remove enormous overhead costs on the production of this solid fuel. Furthermore, its impact on the iron and steel industry would be that this fluidised material would be pelletised with powdered iron ore and you would have built into every pellet its own source of heat and its own reducing power; and there you would have the perfect direct smelting process. In a normal solid fuel power station with practically no alteration of design it would be possible to pipe this liquid fuel in to replace petroleum. So I suggest with all sincerity that the repercussions of that quite simple experiment on the industry would be profound.
As other noble Lords have said, the centre of our energy pattern as we look at it to-day is atomic power in all its forms. But I share the diffidence of my noble friend Lord Zuckerman. I do not feel competent to comment on this area

651
of energy because a little knowledge in this area is exceedingly dangerous and to utter journalistic decisions in this complicated area of energy is, I think, even more dangerous. I therefore pass on to the area of energy that I should like to call the inexhaustible sources of energy, and in particular the use of water, which I am sure will appeal to the noble Lord on the other side of the House who is so engaging in his attitude to everything that I have to say.
At the present moment I am given to understand that only about 10 per cent. of the water resources of the world are being used, and we may take that for what it is worth. But it has also been thought that hydro-electric schemes are feasible only if they are carried out on a large scale. This, on cost analysis, is perfectly true, but if you are looking for sources of energy on an indefinite basis, then the cost parameters are quite different, and in future we shall be forced to look to small hydro-electric stations as being necessary in certain parts of the world. Harnessing the tides has always been an attractive feature in engineering, and I should like to give high praise to the French engineers in the production of the barrage at Rance, where they use the 30-foot tidal surge of the sea. They claim, and I believe their claim will be substantiated, that they are going to generate 50 million kilowatt hours per year. That is some power. This substantial output means to me that we ought to look again at the Bristol Channel where these tidal surges are prevalent.
We also ought to look at the model at Passamaquoddy on the 49th Parallel of the Eastern Seaboard of America where they have two basins in which tidal waters move from one basin to the other and create a continuous flow of indefinite energy. This could be done at several places in the Bristol Channel. Because of the existence of iron and steel centres at Cardiff and Port Talbot, and for no other reason, I suggest that such a two-basin station, a hydro-marine station, could be constructed between Cardiff and Newport, and between Port Talbot and Swansea. Now the creation of these hydro-marine power stations, of course, is always ruled out by the costs in both money and time of making the barrages. But
652
now we have had, oddly enough from a most peculiar area of research, the answer to this problem. In the Paper Packaging Research Association they have demonstrated to me how to package anything you like and fill the packet. Now we can conceive of packaging all the coal-tips in the country into polythene bags and using them like sandbags, but with this advantage: that the polythene bag, being water repellant, will sink to the sea floor, and being able to resist the corrosion of the sea will remain there forever. So we can form a barrage now, rid the countryside of these spoilheaps, and create the barrages we are talking about.
Now supposing I am talking pipe dreams, just imagine what this would ultimately mean in terms of a place like South Wales. It would mean that we could completely electrify the manufacture of iron and steel, and at the same time, because we have surplus electricity, consider installing aluminium smelters. By joining the two together, taking the slag from the iron and steel and joining the electrolytic cells of the aluminium smelter you would get a sensible process for producing iron and steel and aluminium. That would be the kind of forward picture that I should have in my mind in setting out these hydro-marine stations in the Bristol Channel.
Then I naturally come to the other source of eternal power, and that is the crust of the earth. It is surprising, really, how much back-up information now exists regarding the geothermal characteristics of the crust. We are all aware of the enormous power of the geysers of Iceland and New Zealand. What I think has not been particularly well publicised is the geothermal power stations at Larderello, in Tuscany, where the Italians have produced 390 megawatts—enough power to run the whole of their electrified railway lines. This massive achievement provides all the technological back-up to making the search for geothermal power energy a realistic proposition. Japan is already producing 23 megawatts, and a 75 megawatt station is being constructed in Mexico. Should we sit back and still ignore the possibilities of there being hot spots in Britain? When the Romans came here, they used the natural artesian hot springs of Bath.

653
We still do not know what brings that water to practically the boiling point.
Contrary to popular belief it is not in volcanic areas that hot spots occur. Bath is not within a thousand miles of an active volcano. The geothermal flow of heat is found to be mainly concentrated in those areas of brittle rock whose brittleness is reflected by earthquakes. By that I do not mean violent earthquakes; I mean many successive earthquakes. We have in this country a number of such centres. In the centre of England we have the buried ancient massif of Charnwood Forest, along which the brittle strata is rumbling all the time. It does not cause any damage; but it is there and we feel it. We have never drilled for heat in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has said the time has come for us to institute a survey for geothermal energy in this country because it is cheap: once you have got it, it will last for ever. Now, oddly enough, the knowledge of geothermal energy has provided, in my opinion, an answer to the use of coalmine shafts. I have mentioned this before in your Lordships' House. There are many dozens of coalmine shafts over a thousand feet deep, down which we could put water and have turbines at the bottom producing cheap electricity almost overnight. The problem is to get rid of the water. The recently published knowledge of geothermal power stations has provided the answer. That answer is that you convert the water that has descended down the shaft into steam. Now I would remind your Lordships that every colliery has two shafts: the downcast and the upcast. So you use the downcast shaft for producing conventional hydro-electricity, and the upcast shaft could be used for a steam turbine, and the excess water distributed as a district heating scheme—"for free" if you like, as is the case in Iceland at the present time. So I suggest, with all seriousness, that the study of geothermal energy has given us an area of diversification which one would not even have thought possible a year ago.
I now turn to the realm of creating electricity without turbines and dynamos—in other words, the role of fuel cells. There is no doubt in my mind that the battery driven motor car is not common-place because of the enormous vested interest in petroleum and the petrol
654
industry. If we wish to escape from the petrol engine in our motor cars, then it seems to me that we ought to give unlimited encouragement to the production of fuel cells for motor cars. Just imagine what life would be like with battery driven motor cars. Imagine what London would be like. The roar of the traffic would have gone, and one could walk the streets breathing the fresh air without petrol fumes polluting every breath one takes.
My Lords, I should like to close by saying that I, too, do not regard the present situation as a crisis. In fact, it gives me a certain amount of thrill. There is a challenge here, a challenge which has not emerged as vividly as now since the end of the war. I think this challenge will now unleash the enormous amount of knowledge and expertise in this country. If nothing else comes out of this situation, I hope it will do one thing: that is, as we did during the war, abolish that word "impossible".
5.19 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow Lord Energlyn in such an outstanding speech, with all the knowledge that he brings to your Lordships' House. I do not think it is always true that our debates often are infinitely better than they are in the other place. They are certainly quieter, and certainly much better informed, as we have seen this afternoon. My Lords, I owe the House one apology, as I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate. I have at 8 o'clock this evening a previous commitment which I undertook a long time ago. Your Lordships' House is generally so civilised that it is up by 8 o'clock and one can assume, after 20 years of being tied to the House of Commons, that such arrangements can be safely accepted. I realise that in this instance my estimate was wrong. I want to concentrate on one or two ideas. The first is how we might conserve and allocate our existing sources; secondly, how we might increase the rate of development of alternative sources; and lastly, to make an appeal to the Government that they should tell the nation what is happening. At the moment the nation does not understand. It is in a mood to co-operate, and actually is co-operating to the greatest possible extent: but it does not know the why or wherefore.

655
My Lords, to start with, one thing one has to say is that the Arabs have brought this crisis to a head. Though we are discussing mainly oil, I do not believe that the lesson will be lost on producers of other commodities, whether they be metals or other essential commodities. I am afraid the Arabs have started what I might call a disease so far as the developed world is concerned, which might well spread. I think that we should be aware of this and consider what steps we should take in the long term.
This of course has been aggravated by the attitude of the coal miners. I happen to believe that the present restrictions in the mines do not represent the will of the majority of the coal miners. I have a feeling that they have been prevailed upon by their Marxist Secretary-General, Mr. Daly, to a much greater extent than the nation understands. I am the first to say, of course, that the miners have a nasty and dangerous job. If there is a limited amount of money available, I am not sure that the greatest sums should not go to the men at the coal face who are actually doing the work, rather than to the clerks who never go underground. Sixty pounds, which is what is now being offered to those at the coal face—a 16½ per cent. increase—seems to me to be fully justified. I am less happy that a 16½ per cent. increase should be given to a young person totally unqualified, who never goes underground and does not work any overtime. It does not seem to me to be a fair arrangement. The skilled workmen, those doing the nasty job—all power to their elbows—the nation should reward. But I am less enthusiastic about the others.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask what hours a man would have to work, and what shifts, to earn £60 a week at the coal face?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the details. At present the offer is £55·38. I acknowledge that this is not typical of all Coal Board employees. It is what could be paid to the man at the coal face working normal shifts with some overtime. And working night shifts only, or more overtime, would increase the value of the offer to him up to £60 a week.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, apart from working overtime, under the National Powerloading Agreement the maximum wage is just under £35?
LORD ORR-EWING: Yes. But I do not think maximum statutory wages are realistic. I am quoting figures from the National Coal Board on earnings—wage, plus fringe benefits works, allowing for unsocial hours and productivity agreements. It is in their statutory agreement that a certain amount of overtime should be worked on a shift system. However, I do not want to be drawn into an area in which I realise the noble Lord is a much greater expert than I am. I just say that it is a significant offer, and it is a special offer, with unsocial hours being allowed for. It is twice the percentage increase which is allowed to anybody else under Phase 3.
My Lords, I think that the motoring public are seeing just the tip of the iceberg in the inconvenience which they are now suffering. My noble friend Lord Polwarth, who opened from the Front Bench on this side, was not really informed about what is happening. In my intervention I quoted an instance of a garage where they take five tanker deliveries a week normally and they were cut to two deliveries a week. That is not a 10 per cent. cut; it is a 60 per cent. cut. When I made that intervention, another noble Lord from this side said that he was the owner of a petrol pump, and he had received a circular from British Petroleum saying that on the basis of September deliveries he was only going to have delivered 40 per cent. of his allowance. This again is a 60 per cent. cut. This is not a single instance; it was a circular letter which went to all garages in the area which were getting petrol from British Petroleum. I would urge my noble friend to look into these matters. It is not good enough that this House and the public should not know the facts. The public do not know the facts; and they are completely perplexed when they are told that only 10 per cent. of the fuel supply has been cut off.
I want now to turn my attention to other ways of preserving energy. On February 23 of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, and I, together with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took part in

657
a debate on energy initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, from the Liberal Benches. We drew attention then to the staggering savings which could be made if the Government could stimulate a little more insulation in our domestic houses. Our houses take one-third of all the energy we are using—that is, domestic heating in houses. For an expenditure of about £10 on improved roof insulation, we could save substantial quantities of fuel. I urge the Government once again to look into this. It was put forward in February; it is much more important now. We said that in this country the standards of insulation are totally out of keeping with present day costs of fuel and the difficulty of getting it. It was all right of course in the nineteenth century when we had an abundance of coal at very cheap prices. It is no good when we have to bring valuable oil supplies or limited gas supplies from overseas. I would direct my noble friend's attention to the fact that in Europe the standard of house insulation is two and a half times better than ours. They realise now how important it is—probably because they did not have the plentiful supplies of coal that we had one hundred years ago. At a single stroke, if I may coin a phrase, we could save immense sums of money. It is rather better, I think, to give grants for insulation than it is to give grants for bathrooms which people can receive at present. desirable though that is.
My Lords, I want to speak not just of the motorist or domestic insulation, but particularly about industry. At present the Government say that they do not think that a strict rationing and allocation system is essential. But can they tell us whether plans are being made. In 1951, when there was a crisis under the Government of Mr. Churchill (as he then was), he created "super-priority". I hope that a plan is being worked out so that our essential services and our essential basic industries, of which perhaps steel is the most important, will get priority in the allocation of the fuel oil which is available. I would also make the point that many of our industries (here I speak from experience of a hoard meeting yesterday and the day before) are desperately dependent on their sub-contractors and on the supply of raw materials which come by vehicles. Those vehicles need diesel fuel. We all know
658
that the delivery of raw materials and the delivery time of components has been going out and out as our economy has speeded up and the demand has become greater. I know that at the moment we are not getting supplies through and the hauliers and others are pleading that they cannot get the fuel oil to run their lorries; some less scrupulous among them are running their lorries and asking for a premium for delivery. This again will add to the inflation in the country which the Government are so anxious to control.
I now turn, my Lords, to the question of organisation. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, from his great knowledge of Government, did not give us his advice, but rather rested on the view expressed from the Front Bench as to the way it should be done.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, I merely indicated that I did not agree that a Royal Commission—or the kind of Commission that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to be advocating—could do this job. Furthermore, I do not believe that this problem of energy as a resource can be looked at in isolation, and I trust the Government will not do that.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I stand corrected and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, for his intervention. I know how much experience he has had in the scientific field and in Government and I know that the House will take his views very seriously. My own view is that we should perhaps create a Ministry for Energy. I do not believe that it should be a separate Ministry, because our problems are so immediate that I do not want to see a recreation of a Ministry of Fuel and Power. It seems to me that that would create a great deal of turmoil in Whitehall, and we have not the time to set about such a reorganisation. I should like to see a Ministry for Energy created within the Department of Trade and Industry but more or less autonomous and self-sufficient. It was Mr. Churchill who tried the experiment of these enormous Ministries with overlords presiding over them. I do not think they worked then, and I am not at all certain that anyone—not even the right honourable Archangel Gabriel, if he were in charge of the Ministry of Trade and Industry

659
with 20,000 civil servants under his control—could administer that efficiently. Every engineer here will know that the momentum of a mass—in this case a Ministry—is dependent upon its size; and the bigger the mass the less likely you are to get quick decisions or quick movements. I believe we need quick decisions, so I should like to see a hiving off, under the D.T.I., of a Ministry for Energy.
I am perfectly prepared to accept the view, suggested by the noble Lord, that we should try to get some scientific brains together to explore all orthodox and unorthodox ways of creating energy. We have to solve this energy equation all over again. Solutions which were arrived at ten years ago must not be accepted in to-day's context. The values have completely changed and the problems, I think, should be re-examined. Too often, as we get older, we accept the solution to something that we worked out twenty years ago, and we forget that some things have now become plentiful which were then scarce, or vice versa. Therefore, through laziness of mind, we do not start to do it all over again. I believe that if we had a Royal Commission, as was suggested, it should be a gathering together of people with scientific knowledge—and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, would be on it—and unorthodox ideas. Please do not let us accept that it is impossible or that it must take a great deal of time. Mulberry Harbour would have been thought utterly impossible at one time, yet it was brought into existence and the first operational prototype worked extremely efficiently after a period of three years. The pipeline under the ocean (PLUTO) would also have been thought utterly impossible at one time. But scientific brains were got together round the Prime Minister of the day, and there was a great desire on the part of the nation to solve the problem—and we did. So if you get great brains together you will get gains all the way.
I happened to sit with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the Select Committee of Science and Technology which was looking into nuclear power stations, so I have a special interest—and also I took my degree at Oxford in Nuclear Physics, thanks to a very wise professor who led
660
me in that direction in the early 1930s. Therefore I am perhaps not entirely objective; but I accept that it will take time to build these power stations—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said it would take some eight or ten years. If I had to make a choice, I would say: let us go for the proven technology of the Magnox which has been tried in this country, and let us build the improvements which have come out of the Mark I Magnox into a second Mark. In these areas of applied technology the proven instrument is so much better, particularly when time is short. So I would recommend that as a possible approach.
I am also greatly attracted to hydroelectric schemes. I would add my voice to others who have suggested that we should re-examine these schemes, particularly in Scotland and Wales. Do not let us think that we need to have a gigantic scheme which would put 50 miles, or an entire valley under water. There are a number of viable smaller schemes now that can run electricity quite cheaply over grids and these might well help our problem. I am also attracted to pump storage. I can never quite understand why this has not caught on—there must be some factor which I have not discovered. It seems to me an extremely attractive idea to generate electricity during the peak hours when you want it, and to pump the water back over the fall at night when you have surplus electricity from your base stations. As I say, this seems to me to be very attractive. Let us examine again the cost, the time factor and the attractiveness of it. Again, I should like to advocate that we should examine, among other things, tidal power. Like the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, I have also looked at the Severn and other places, and it seems to be a very attractive proposition. The French are doing this— and perhaps I might point out that we constantly say we cannot afford this or that in this country, but you have only to look at what France is doing with a similar population. They are doing about twice as much as we are. If they can afford it, so can we.
Finally, I come to the question of a geological survey. The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, is a much greater expert than I am on this subject, and I apologise for venturing upon ground on which he is so knowledgeable. Surely modern technological surveys can be undertaken

661
more quickly and more accurately than they could of old. Ought we not now to reconsider a modern survey of our country, re-exploring the possibility of raw materials, as well as of energy sources of all types? They were not so important when the survey was done 50 years ago, and I think that skilled manpower is now available. It would not need a vast amount of effort to carry out a really up-to-date survey, using most modern methods. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who accused him of having changed his mind. I was always comforted, I remember, when we both sat in another place, when Mr. Churchill was interrupted and was accused of having changed his mind. He said then:
"The processes of my mind constantly adjust themselves to the movement of outside events."
I have the feeling that that fully explains why he changed his mind in those days and why we may have to change our minds on the sources of energy which we are going to use.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not object, of course, to the noble Lord's changing his mind: that is his business. What I object to is the Liberal Party posing up and down the country, and in this House, as the forerunner of opinion, and the failure of the noble Lord to say to the House: "I have changed my mind. I said something in 1967, and the country to-day faces the consequences of what I advocated then. Now I admit that I was wrong, and this is what we now ought to do." This is what I am complaining of, and I will complain about it whether it occurs on this Bench, that Bench or the other Bench.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am delighted to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said in that last intervention.
My last appeal to the Government is: please tell the nation what is happening. It really is no good having Question and Answer periods in another place or in this House. The messages do not go out—I wish they did—from Westminster now. This is one of the reasons why I was a great advocate for the televising of Parliament, because I felt that in an age when the television medium was the
662
dominant one we could not opt out of communicating our deliberations and discussions to the public. However, it did not come about—it was defeated by one vote, I believe by Mr. Aidan Crawley, who confessed that he changed his mind—and then he went and ran a television network instead of sitting in the House. So the televising of Parliament has not come about. But I do plead that we should consider asking Ministers now to go on "the box" and explain to the motoring public and to the nation what is happening, why we are short and what the Government are doing to put matters right. I am sure that every noble Lord was very agreeably amazed at the manner in which the motoring public co-operated with the plea to motor at 50 miles an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, laughs, but I have driven quite a long way on motorways, and I assure noble Lords that I was not passed more than once or twice in every half hour's driving; and the vast majority of people were driving at only 50 miles an hour. I know there are exceptions, though I will not mention the type of chaps they were or the cars they were driving. There are exceptions to every plea, but to-day the public are in a mood to co-operate. They cannot co-operate, however, unless they are told the facts, and I ask the Government to go on "the box" and tell them the facts, tell them what is being done to organise our energy supplies. And let us not dismiss any new ideas that will help solve that problem.
5.40 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for initiating this debate. We have a great deal of detailed legislation before this House and it is a good thing, I think, to devote ourselves for one afternoon and evening to a subject which in a sense affects everything that we do. I speak with very great diffidence, because even noble Lords who I thought were simply laymen introducing themselves in this way turn out to be professors or graduates with maximum honours in the subject that we are talking about. But I feel that from these Benches occasionally somebody should arise to speak as the plain man, and that is what I do—and I describe it in that way because we all accept that there is no such thing as a plain woman.

663
I wish to avoid going in any detail into my own subject of foreign policy and diplomacy because I believe that we should support unreservedly the Prime Minister's exhortation to deal with the present situation in the world with quiet diplomacy. At this particular moment, British foreign policy and British diplomacy are—and I do not think this is an exaggeration—walking every hour on eggs, and the eggs are strewn around a minefield. It would be so easy by one incautious public statement to slow down the process of peace-making or to render ourselves useless in contributing to peacemaking. It is very much better that the traditional processes should work themselves out at least for a little longer.
So, avoiding that, I should like to deal very briefly with three aspects of the present situation which I will call coherence, foresight and, finally, courage—and I do not apologise for using the word "courage", for I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, used the word "courageous" in the February debate about research; and I think that a great deal of courage is involved in this question. If I may come first to coherence, perhaps I may quote a few dates to your Lordships. The Arab-Israeli hostilities began on October 6; on the 17th the representatives of four of the oil producing States, including two of the greatest producers in the world, met in Kuwait. They announced a decision to cut production by 10 per cent., and forecast a possible reduction of 5 per cent. per month. It was then that I read with some surprise in the Government Statement of October 24 the phrase—and I am quoting only part of a sentence, but it is very psychological: "in case we do ever need such a scheme…" that is to say, rationing.
This was followed some three weeks later by the Emergency Statement, and the result of this sequence of events gave a totally false impression. I am sure that something was intended against our own industries by the fact that the emergency seemed to coincide with our difficulties in power and in mining and somehow to detach itself from the oil problem. I do plead—and I here join with the noble Lord who has just spoken so eloquently and encouragingly—for clarity between the different parts of the Gov-
664
ernment on this matter, because it is a very puzzling situation for the public who do not know quite where they are or what to do. Certainly, despite the immense complexity of business within the Government, there seems to me a possibility and the necessity for making sure that not only coal but steel, oil and so on should speak with one voice; and it is immensely important that they should do so.
May I add one sentence to what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said about rationing? I do wish to float the idea that in a situation of this kind it is possible for a short time to ask the public to do things out of a sense of obligation, to put the public on its honour. But it surely must be understood from previous experience that this cannot be done for very long, because in the end it simply means that the unscrupulous get all the benefits and the conscientious suffer. I think it would not be wise to go on speaking as though this idea were completely excluded, and I hope that, as the noble Lord suggested, we shall have a little clarity on Government policy.
Now I proceed to the question of organisation, on which much has already been said. I should first say that I read with great encouragement what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said on Monday about various things individually that the Government are doing. In speaking of setting up new organisations I am perfectly aware that a profusion of bodies does not necessarily remove the confusion of minds. None the less, it seems as though it is time for there to be some high-level body in which all the aspects and elements of energy can be compared, looked into, examined and an initiative launched by people who are familiar with them.
I can imagine that some of the meetings of such a body would be extremely abrasive; but, after all, that is what Government have to contend with. But I think that from both the absolute viewpoint of efficiency and looking ahead this is necessary, and I am even more certain that from the point of view again of the plain man it is what the plain man would like to see. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has changed his mind on this. I am sure that such a body has to be, in the end,

665
under the authority of the Minister, not as an indvidual but as a Member of the Cabinet and the Government; and I suggest that perhaps it would be better to call it an Energy Agency or an Energy Board, rather than an Energy Commission. I suggest this because to the general public the word "Commission" suggests an extremely worthy and statesmanlike body which prepares an excellent report and then retires, amid applause, and the report retires similarly into the book-shelf. This should be, of all things, an active body which will carry out what I think the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, described in a previous debate as the liveliness of research and initiativeness into this problem.
Going on with that I would also mention a point which has not so far been mentioned to-day: should there be an attempt to produce an energy plan? I know all the arguments against it and the word "flexibility" gets extremely worn in this discussion. On the other hand, modern management practice tends more and more towards management by objectives, and it is possible that there would be no harm in at least putting forward objectives which the country and its industry would try to live up to. It may be objected that you make a five-year plan and then you are stuck with it. May I just cite the practice which the Government of India adopted in the question of plans when I was there? That was that you did indeed have a five-year plan, but you had a very good look at it each year. Obviously, some reputations diminished and others went up, but you were not stuck with it; there was always the possibility of a revision if you saw that the objectives were wrong or that you had not the resources to pursue quite as big a plan as you contemplated. So I hope that the Government will look favourably on the idea of an Energy Board and will not close their mind to the possibility of that Board's producing an energy policy.
I was afraid that my last point was going to be a difficult one to express, but the noble Lord who has just spoken has fortunately given me a cue. If noble Lords go from the calm and thoughtful atmosphere of your Lordships' House out into the street and talk to almost anybody, whether your Lordships know them or
666
not, you will find an almost unanimity of thought that in a very general way this country is not in its best form. I have been trying to think in the context of what we are talking about now why this should be so. I believe it to be partly a matter of the post-imperial psychological reaction that we hear and read so much about how unimportant we have become, and how the things we did were wrong: we have a negative psychology, against which any Government have to work.
In addition to that—and here I will go back to the Russian Revolution—in March 1917 the Russian people overthrew the autocracy. In the interval between that Revolution being accomplished and the country being taken over by the Communist Party there was one slogan which was very important, "The worse, the better". In other words, the more trouble there could be, the more quickly would a complete overturn of everything be brought about. We as a country must face—and the point is gradually surfacing in the media and elsewhere—that there are people dedicated to this proposition in this country. Any Government of any Party will have to carry out this great revolution in energy against a certain amount of pressure in a purely destructive direction. If this fact is realised, admitted and countered, the chance of achieving this technological and power revolution will be that much facilitated.
So I commend to your Lordships once again a coherence in Government utterance, a good look at the organisation we have to deal with energy, including a favourable look at the idea of an Energy Board, and, finally any way we can all think of of substituting a positive attitude for a negative one towards our future. We must now, in the words of that famous quotation once again learn to "Greet the unseen with a cheer."
5.53 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I was most interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and I shall re-read it with interest and pleasure. He made one statement that captivated my attention when he said that these circumstances are more of challenge than of crisis. I could not help but think that, historically speaking, crises very often precede challenge. The question of energy, and the

667
fuels which provide such energy, as has been demonstrated in your Lordships House to-day, is in everybody's mind and on everybody's lips at the moment, not only here in Britain but throughout the world, particularly in the industrialised nations. I think we can say on this problem of energy and fuel that there is no dearth in articulation. The spoken and the written word is in full flow in Parliaments throughout many parts of the world; in the Press, on the radio, on television, and on every platform. Every day people are saying something about this vital question of fuel and energy. Coal and oil are two of the four fuels which in this country contribute the major part to our energy requirements, and the circumstances with which we are confronted here in the energy sphere, I think we should all agree, make this debate in your Lordships' House today both appropriate and timely. Whatever view may be held in any part of your Lordships' House on the question of fuel and energy, whatever mistakes have been made in the past, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for providing the opportunity for this question on fuel and energy to be ventilated and debated here to-day.
With your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to make a few observations about two of our fuels; namely, oil and coal, which at this point in time are the most substantial bases of our energy requirements. Before doing that, may I just ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who is to reply to the debate, whether he will say something about nuclear power. It was referred to in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. Could the noble Lord tell us the role that nuclear power is likely to play in our energy requirements in the next decade? In 1955—that is, almost twenty years ago—the nuclear energy industry began to expand from experimental power stations to an energy contribution which in 1972 reached the equivalent of 10 million tons of coal. That is twenty years for nuclear energy to supply only that small portion in the form of electrical power, which I understand is about 3 per cent. of our total energy requirements. That is only a drop in the ocean at the moment. I know that there are problems; and maybe the Minister will have something
668
to say about them. There are technical problems and financial problems. It would serve this nation well if at this stage we were to spend money on nuclear power to meet our energy requirements, rather than on such subjects as Maplin and the Channel Tunnel. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate to your Lordships what the estimated contribution of nuclear power to our energy requirements, say, ten years hence, is likely to be. In saying that, I suggest that in view of the precariousness of the situation in the energy field, the Government should make up their minds what contribution nuclear power is likely to make in the next ten years to our energy requirements.
In industrial processes and production in industrial societies, not only in Britain but throughout Europe, America, Japan and Russia, with their sophisticated techniques and machinery, the basis of it all is energy. In Britain, for instance, that aplies to every section of our industry and the manufacture of our goods. Even in agriculture, what a transformation there has been in this particular sphere! The land is now ploughed by mechanical tractors. The fruits of the earth are garnered by mechanical processes, and even the cow is milked by electric power. That is the size of the transformation that has taken place in only one of our major and important industries. Almost every household, office, building and shop is lit and heated, and so they should be; and modern technology, in my humble judgment, without the energy which is provided by fuel, could not exist. May I put it this way? Without fuel, whether it be fossil in the form of coal, or marine life in the form of oil, or mineral in the form of uranium for nuclear power, the energy required to run a modern, sophisticated society would not exist. Fuel is priority No. 1 in our modern society, and without it, or if it is restricted in supply, as is evidenced at the present moment, we are really in a crisis.
I now wish to say a few words about the possible and probable reserves of oil and natural gas. Naturally, as a layman with no scientific or technical knowledge, I have to rely upon the knowledgeable experts. My first piece of evidence in this sphere is from a man named Dr. Warman. He is British Petroleum's chief

669
geologist. I quote from what was published on November 15, 1973, from Dr. Warman's lips:
"The total recoverable reserves of oil in the world are from 16 to 18 hundred billion barrels, well under half the amount needed by the year 2000 if the demand continues to grow, say at a rate of 7½ per cent. a year; even to satisfy present consumption the world requires a new North Sea every two years."
That is somewhat of a sombre prospect so far as oil as a fuel is concerned—25 years: it is not a long way off, only a couple of decades. And on the evidence I have just quoted the wells by then will have dried up and the bottom of the barrels will have been scraped by the world. The Evening Standard, who published this evidence on the date that I have mentioned, made this comment:
"'Generally speaking, the figures of Dr. Warman are not disputed by the oil experts."
My second and last piece of scientific evidence is from the United Nations Economic Committee. This body recently made this forecast—and I quote:
"By the year 2000, 87 per cent. of all proven, probable and possible reserves of oil will have been consumed; 76 per cent. of natural gas; but only 2 per cent. of our reserves of coal."
Those figures and forecasts, in the light of our existing dependence, and the world's dependence, on oil, are, to put it no higher, a little frightening. They are certainly not reassuring. If I may use a metaphor, they are not like the widow's barrel of meal and the cruse of oil that wasteth not. At this moment 50 per cent. of our energy requirements is being met by oil.
Another point I should like to ask the Minister at this stage is this. I have the figures for our energy requirements up to 1970. At that time they were 328 million tons of coal equivalent, and 300 million was almost equally shared between coal and oil, and the remainder between natural gas and nuclear power. It is estimated—and maybe the Minister will comment upon this—that demand for energy will not only grow but, on the basis of an expanding economy, by 1975 our energy requirements will be in the neighbourhood of 370 million tons of coal equivalent, and with further economic growth by 1980 it is estimated that they could
670
be 440 million tons. It is like a motor car, is it not, my Lords?—the faster you go, the more fuel you require. That is why we are having the present restrictions placed upon us.
It is well known, but it is as well to re-state it, that 70 per cent. of our import of oil, which supplies now half our energy requirements, comes from the Middle East. One-tenth reduction, and crisis is upon us. Furthermore, we are informed, as is every other customer obtaining oil from the Middle East, that if care is not exercised respecting relations with Israel further punitive measures will be taken. I recall a speech that I made in another place in 1965 when I said that every post-war Government have put too many eggs in the oil basket; and the Government which I then supported, of the Party which I still support, are as guilty as every other post-war Government. This was done at the expense of our own indigenous fuel beneath our feet, which it is estimated will last for at least 100 years at the present rate of production. The three reasons why I thought in 1965 that we were making a mistake were these—I repeat them to your Lordships now: first, the effect on our balance of payments; second, the long, dangerous haul by sea, which was made longer still after 1965 when the Suez Canal was closed, and, lastly, but not least in importance, that politically the area from which this oil fuel came was dynamite. That has been proved during the last few months, as it was in 1967 and, before that, in 1956.
Speaking as one who has been connected with the coalmining industry I am sure I have no need to apologise for, and your Lordships will understand that I have, a coal bias. Since 1955, when contraction of the industry began, miners' leaders have been warning the country. In the light of the warnings that have been given during the past twenty years, as to the danger of fuel shortages if too great a reliance were placed on imported fuel in the form of oil, do not say that the National Union of Mineworkers is not a responsible body. I will quote just one statement—there are many more—that has been made by successive Secretaries of the National Union of Mineworkers. Arthur Horner, now deceased, troubled as he was in the middle

671
'fifties about the contraction of the coal-mining industry, said this:
"As the oil supplying countries raise their living standards they will demand a higher price for their raw material,"—
that was a prophecy that has already come true—
"and any Government would be advised to give priority to the only indigenous fuel we have got. Strategically I think we would be mad to let coal production fall below certain levels."
So far as the coalmining industry is concerned, during the past twenty years a surgical operation has taken place. Sometimes I wonder whether the impact is fully appreciated by the nation. I should like to illustrate it by means of a few statistics. First, let us take manpower: in 1952 there were 708,000 men in the industry; in 1962 there were 551,000; in 1972 there were 281,500. At to the producing collieries, in 1952 there were 880; in 1962 there were 616, and by 1972 that figure had fallen to 289. What about output? The output in 1952 was 211 million tons; in 1962 it was 187 million tons, and in 1972 it was 109 million tons. I know that was the year of the miners' strike, but now it is about 130 million tons. What a transformation in this fuel industry in twenty years! By this process of contraction to such an extent over that period of time that I have mentioned, the immediate and the longer-term future of our nation has been jeopardised.
I recall 65 years ago when, as a pony driver in the pit, I, with others, took the ponies from the stables; we had a flame lamp of not more than a couple of candle power penetrating the darkness, and we used to sing what I suppose would be called a ditty:
"Coal, precious coal
What would the world be without it?
What would become of our ships on the seas
Our railways, our homes and big factories."
Looking back, while thinking of the present and of the last twenty years, "King Coal" has been demoted. At one time it was the only fuel that mattered, but now it looks at though we have to reverse the abdication of that monarch which has been taking place during these past twenty years.
I will conclude this part of my speech with a quotation from the then Vice-
672
President of the National Union of Mineworkers at the Trades Union Congress in 1972. I think it is important:
"First, we must change course before it is too late. Our union still contends that coal is still the most important source of energy that we have. What is more important, we know there are reserves which will last for more than a century at present rates of production. For the sake of Britain's economic survival and to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, it is absolutely essential that a more realistic fuel policy be pursued, not only to prevent any further contraction of the industry but to expand in those virgin areas where recent explorations have proved extensive coal deposits."
For twenty years the National Union of Mineworkers have opposed the policies of all Governments who have allowed the catastrophic contraction of the mining industry. The consumption of oil here in the last decade, since 1959, in meeting our energy requirements, has risen from 22 per cent. to 45·5 per cent. For the past twenty years the National Union of Mineworkers have had a responsible approach to the problem of fuel and energy in our country, taking the long view rather than the immediate advantage of what was referred to as a "cheap fuel policy". In 1960, if I may again quote, the previous Secretary of the Union said:
"If you carry on closing collieries and disrupting communities to make the books balance you will certainly make the figures look better, but you will be robbing future generations of the energy they are going to need. It is the future you have got to think about. If the Government squeeze this industry as they are doing, your children will have to pay the price and they won't thank you for it. We want a national fuel policy to replace the present free-for-all based upon Government assessment of the annual fuel requirements of the nation and providing for the coal industry a share of national requirements."
I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I wanted to say something about the present position in the mining industry. I know my noble friend Lord Blyton has something to say about that, so I will make only two comments. With reference to the ban on overtime, it is not illegal for men to give up their leisure time to work overtime. Surely not. Speaking of obeying the law, I am not sure whether there is not ample justification for saying that the amount of overtime that is being worked in the pits at this moment is a breach of the Statute. Perhaps the Minister can tell me. Section

673
3 of the principal Act of 1908 reduces the hours of labour underground to eight, with the proviso that not more than 60 days in any calendar year shall be worked as overtime. I know a lot of people who are working long periods of overtime. I will give two examples. The first concerns a friend of mine, who for the last seven years, apart from annual holidays, has worked in the mining industry every Saturday and Sunday. I know of another man, who is a first-class mechanic with a City and Guilds Certificate, who has worked every weekend this year.
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who spoke of wages of £60. Yes; some men are getting that amount of money. But to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, how many hours are men working underground to get that amount of money? There is much else I should like to say, but in my humble judgment we are in a serious situation so far as energy requirements are concerned. I hope that the nettle will be grasped by placing greater emphasis on the only indigenous fuel we have at the moment, namely, coal.
My concluding words are these. If present claims continue in the mining industry, in the not too distant future we shall have not a wage crisis but a manpower crisis, because at this moment men are leaving the industry at the rate of 600 a week.
6.25 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, one of the penalties of a long apprenticeship in the House of Commons is that I cannot and will not read a speech. I learned to debate. That means one has to take into consideration what has been said by previous speakers. The penalty is that one prepares a speech, and then, as speech after speech is made, one goes through the process of learning various things and one's speech alters. Many of the statistics I would have quoted have been quoted already by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield in his very able speech. Perhaps I may be permitted to come back to the main argument a little later, although I will not weary your Lordships' House by quoting the figures my noble friend has already used.
674
I must say that I was a little surprised to have my history rewritten for me by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. As might be expected from one who has been a long time in the Foreign Office, he found "the Red under the bed". Those who are responsible for the negative way of life are those who take an opposite view about the organisation of society, and we have to struggle with them. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, reminded us of the Russian Revolution and what happened in March, 1917. He then discovered that the Resolution took place in April. It seems to me that autumn came early that year, because I have always thought that the October Revolution was the decisive factor in Russian history. But I dwell on that only because I think there is a great deal in what he said in the latter part of his speech.
He said that one of the problems of our country at present is what he was pleased to call the negative attitude. This he related to the fact that we have declined as a power in the world. What he does not seem to understand—and with his background I can forgive him for that—is that as we move away from the imperial/colonial period, people become ashamed of it. They are ashamed of the shabby, tinselly concept of imperialism so beloved by noble Lords on the other side of the House. But there is another lesson to learn in this, which is that the non-aligned countries of the world have seen through colonialism. For them it has ended.
I come now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. He said that we must not see energy in isolation. Of course we must not. What has happened with regard to oil will happen with other commodities. The Arab position on oil is going to be followed by crises in commodity after commodity. The days when the aristocracy in this country built their country houses and lived their pleasant lives has ended, not only for them but for all of us. I can find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who said he felt braced by the present crisis. I do. I feel, and have always felt—perhaps it is this which makes me proud of being what I am—that when the people of this country are brought face to face with the realities of the situation, they are

675
nine-tenths on the way to solving it. What we are seeing is a Government, elected on a false prospectus, having to eat every single word, regurgitate and eat them again, of the Election promises on which they came to power. Of course, that produces a certain amount of cynicism, but it enables me to pay tribute, as I did yesterday, to the diagnostic power of Mr. Powell. In my view, he plays a role in the modern world which is equivalent to that of John the Baptist. He came out of the wilderness saying, "Repent, the day of judgement is at hand". It is at hand, for the Government and for us.
LORD RHODES: John the Baptist came to a sticky end.
LORD MOYNE: He lost his head.
LORD WIGG: He may have lost his head, but I am not concerned with his end but with the truth which he spoke. The point is that Mr. Powell's diagnosis of the subject we spoke about yesterday, the diagnosis of our economic troubles, stands up; and he has not got to eat his words. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had to eat his words with little charm. He would not have eaten them if, during the course of his speech, I had not reminded him of what he had said on the earlier occasion. Lord Avebury one can dismiss, as I do, and say he is only a Liberal; you do not expect much from him. But the Prime Minister is in a different category.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves my contribution—and I am most grateful to him for giving way and for reiterating his reminder to me of what I said in 1967, six years ago—I would point out that he quoted a passage from column 1940 in which I said that so far as it was economically and socially practicable the coalmining industry should be run down. That was the sentence he quoted. He did not look at column 1942 where I said that as a planning target for the industry we should have taken 156 million tons for 1970, a target the industry would have been very happy to achieve. Does not the noble Lord realise that since I spoke the industry has declined from 400,000 employees to 250,000, a target which is much below what I was aiming at at that time?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry I did not read the whole speech; perhaps I should have learned it by heart. What I was saying was that he then, on the Floor of the House of Commons on behalf of the Liberal Party, advocated running down the coalmining industry as fast as possible; that is indisputable. What the noble Lord does not understand is that if he said "run it down as fast as possible," those were words in support of the Prime Minister, and, if I may, I want to move on to the Prime Minister's part in this business. The Prime Minister, dishonourably, only a few days ago, tried to argue—and it was half done by Lord Polwarth this afternoon, but not quite; a civil servant had obviously edited what he was going to say that the present Government had reversed a process set in motion by the Labour Government, and it was indeed the Conservatives who were putting things right. What did Mr. Heath say in 1967? He said:
"Men are going out of manufacturing and exporting industries and back into coalmining, which is not an exporting industry. In my opinion the closure of pits should move forward as fast as possible, and faster than it has been doing".
That is what he said then. Lord Ave-bury said it in 1967, the Prime Minister said it before, and of course the process has been going on and on.
My approach to this problem is a quite simple one. I am a Socialist, without prefix or suffix, and I look at this in socialist terms. I regret that my noble friend Manny Shinwell is not here to-day because he is ill. I became his P.P.S. and helped him to tackle the problem of a rundown mining industry with a stock position of 11 million tons, and right nobly he did the task, attacked and vilified on every occasion by honourable gentlemen and noble Lords on that side of the House, some of whom were in the House of Commons then and are sitting there now. What was my noble friend's approach? He argued that coal was our only indigenous raw material and you have to move from the gold standard—we were forced off the gold standard—to a coal standard, nationalise the mines, give the miners a square deal, then move on to gas and electricity, and eventually an Act which would bring the three industries together, so that you would use coal not merely to burn in a rather shortsighted way. In fact you

677
were destroying a commodity which was capable of application in many fields. The research had then to be done, and the policy continued throughout the life of the first Labour Government.
Then, of course, it was run down. The critical point was reached in 1961 by Mr. Macmillan, a man whom this country highly honours but to whom it owes very little. He betrayed his country in the field of defence by the 1957 White Paper, and he betrayed it in another way; he appointed Lord Robens of Woldingham. It is a characteristic of the Right Wing of all Governments of all countries that they always find their leaders in the dustbin of the Left. They could not find a Tory to do their dirty work for them, to run the industry down. Lord Robens was fetched in to do the job and the coal industry was run down. I remember arguing with one of its economic survivors and saying, "You do this and you will live to regret it, because if you run it down and you make a mistake, you will only discover it at the trough, when you are somewhere near the bottom; and when Humpty Dumpty came off the wall, all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men are not going to put Humpty Dumpty together again".
It is true, as Lord Taylor said, that there are coal reserves in this country that would last us 100 years, but we have run out of miners. Why are the Government in conflict now? Because the miners are being forced to work overtime on a scale which shows what the shortage in the industry must be. What the Government now ought to do in the face of this shortage is to admit it to the miners and say, "Yes, you have got us over a barrel", in the same way as the seamen had the Labour Government over a barrel in the previous Labour Administration, or they could have put us over the barrel and could have put the country over a barrel in 1945 and 1946, when they were Communist led. Let it be noted that they are Communist led to-day. Here I want to turn to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who very kindly expressed his regret that he would have to leave. The point was half made again by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth.
Let us take a look at the record of the Communists in the mining industry. I remember Grimethorpe. What was the
678
issue at Grimethorpe, the first crisis after the war? There had been great expenditure on mechanisation at Grimethorpe, and the chaps in the pit thought that if you mechanised it meant they had done their stint and they could come out of the pit, which really meant that you were mechanising in order to give them something. In other words, there had not been sufficient education of the miners in the social and economic consequences of mechanisation, and they had to be faced. There was a dispute which would have been as disastrous to the country as disputes to-day are. Who went down and faced them? Needless to say, my right honourable friend the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. Who went with him? Arthur Horner. And I went to meeting after meeting in that Yorkshire coalfield, and Arthur Horner stood his corner at every stage.
Let me quote some of the things said by the man who has been vilified to-day. Let me hasten to add that I do not carry a Communist card in my hip pocket, but I want to speak the truth, because the truth is the only antedote to the country's problems. Arthur Horner in 1955 said:
"We say the cheapest form of investment in power in this country is to invest in coal, and this means investing in men as well as machinery ".
In 1959 he said:
"As the oil-supply countries raise their living standards, they will demand a higher price for their raw material…. Any Government would be advised to give priority to the only indigenous fuel we have got. Strategically I think we would be mad to let coal production fall below certain levels."
One could go on quoting from Arthur Horner, quoting from Will Paynter, quoting from Lawrence Daly. These men and other men I could quote are as loyal to society and to the class of which they are a part as any single one of us. But what they know—and again I could quote—is that the Party opposite are nearer to the oil barons, nearer to the sources that would make vast sums out of other men's labour, than they should be, with the result that the policies that are followed are policies which serve big interests and the forces which the Conservative Party exists to serve.
The Socialist remedy here is the only remedy. The Labour Party should be following the example set by Mr. Enoch Powell in saying that the growth policy,

679
as conceived by the Government, is economic nonsense. We cannot promote inflation with one hand, and then seek to stop it with the other; this is a piece of economic nonsense which can only mislead.
May I turn to the question of oil? I have no doubt whatever that what I am about to say is going to cause some unpleasantness. I do not mind that. I shall even be charged with being anti-Semitic. I do not mind that. My record is all right, and I would even compare it in service to the Jewish people with some of the ardent Zionists in this House. But I am, above all, a British subject; and here I support to the full the Foreign Secretary and the Government in their efforts to serve the interests of this country and get a settlement in the Middle East. Let me hasten to add that our record is not clean. The record of the Foreign Office and of successive Foreign Secretaries, including Sir Alec Douglas-Home has a lot to answer for. Every single Arab nationalist from Arabi Pasha, Zaghlul Pasha, Mohammed Neguib, and Gamal Abdul Nasser, who wanted to lead the Egyptian people, has served the cause of the British people—and particularly Zaghlul in the First World War—and they found themselves either in prison or cancelled out.
The result of that policy, which stems from the Balfour Declaration, has led to the cancellation of British power in the Middle East. I regret it deeply. I am not an imperialist; I reject imperialism. I am not a colonialist; I reject colonialism. However, I spent many long years of my youth in Iraq, in the forces of occupation in Turkey, in Mosul, in Palestine, in Egypt, in the Sudan—all the unpleasant stations. I was not on a Parliamentary visit, but I spent years there; and not even as an officer but as an other rank. I learnt my knowledge of the problems of the Middle East the hard way.
The description and political analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, this afternoon of the recent Israeli/Arab conflict is right. The fact that noble Lords walked out of the House while he was speaking was completely unjustified. Let me add that he used one phrase that he would have been wiser not to use, and I would suggest to him that he takes
680
the course of withdrawing it. But his analysis was right, and the Arabs are going to see that they get justice.
Yesterday, in the course of a supplementary question (which is an inadequate way of handling the problem) I mentioned three points which to my mind would lead Ito a settlement in the Middle East. First, a settlement must be based on justice. It is no good anyone imagining—and I mean particularly the Zionists who find their Zionism urging them on to subscribe but not to return to Palestine—that you can leave generation after generation of Arabs sitting out in those Judaean hills, looking at the houses That their families built on land that their families had occupied for hundreds of years. Remember that Palestine was not liberated by the Hagganah. When British troops crossed into Sinai at Kantara before the first battle of Gaza there were not six Jewish settlements in the whole of Palestine. The power of the Ottoman Empire, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Marmora, to the southernmost tip of the Mediterranean, was broken by the valour of British troops. All over that vast area there are countless graves to mark the price that Britain and her sons paid for the liberty of that area. We have a right to speak up, and our countrymen should realise what is at issue. There must be justice.
One of the troubles is that the Jews have been persecuted for 2.000 years, and the persecution in the lifetime of most of us was of the most shocking and un speakable kind. But they are not persecuted any longer. They have prospered The people who are persecuted today are the Arabs. It is in Palestine under the Israelis that the Arab is treated as a second-class citizen. It is in France that the Algerian is treated as a second-class citizen.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is The noble Lord aware that the Arabs who are to-day in Israel have helped the Israelis in the war? They have given their blood. Is he aware that even in the territories which are the so-called occupied areas there has been no attack on the Israelis?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, forgive me for saying this, but I understand the power of the Israeli propaganda machine, and I have read the stories about the

681
Arabs giving their blood. My own sources of information are good enough for me to know that they are treated as second-class citizens. In certain areas I am quite prepared to believe that that is not so, but basically the Arabs regard themselves as second-class citizens. That is what is going to be put right.
The first point I want to make—and this is what has to be accepted; I go further, and say that the intelligent Israelis, and I would start with the Prime Minister, Mrs. Golda Meir, know this perfectly well—is that there can be no peace in the Middle East unless that first principle of justice is recognised. The noble Lord has done irreparable harm to the cause that he has espoused over the years. Nobody has done more harm to the Israeli cause than the noble Lord, because they take him at face value. I discount it. I make allowance for his enthusiasm and, if I may say so, his ignorance. The fact is that there has to be justice, and all intelligent people who know anything about it know that Israel cannot forever live on her tiptoes. Israel cannot forever live with 25 per cent. of her population mobilised if she is to survive. The problem is that nobody but the noble Lord and his friends believe that Israel is not going to survive. Of course Israel can survive, but she is a small country, and like all small countries she has to recognise how small she is; and David cannot take on Goliath every day in the week. She has to accept that her security will depend on international guarantees.
This moves me to my second point, which is the balance of forces. The Israelis have been lavishly supplied with American equipment. That has been counterbalanced to some extent by Russian equipment on the other side. But the superiority of the Phantoms is now balanced by the Sam 6. What the West has done, what successive Conservative Governments have done and the Conservative forces have done, is to prove to the Arabs the efficacy of a weapon which we refuse to use.
The noble Lord is old enough to remember the League of Nations, which was supposed to outlaw war. What were they going to depend on? My noble friend Lord Davies will remember the arguments we had in Stoke-on-Trent. If the Labour Party faced a difficult situation, they would pass a resolution to send a League
682
of Nations force or impose sanctions. We tried to impose sanctions. Is there any noble Lord who now believes, in the light of what has happened, that we could not have stopped Mussolini in Abyssinia? Is there any noble Lord who believes that we could not have stopped Hitler when he went in to the Rhineland? Of course we could, if we had had the will. But the Arabs, under force majeure, have found the will here to prove that the sanction weapon does work.
They have also done something else. They have eliminated with a stroke of the pen Israeli influence right throughout Africa, with one exception—South Africa. They have said to those black countries, the countries which have in fact broken their connections with Israel, "Yes, we will come in with you, on one condition: that when you settle this little lot you will square accounts with Rhodesia and South Africa". That is the new lesson in the modern world, and this is the lesson that the British public have got to learn—that imperialism and colonialism are finished and that what has happened with oil is going to happen to every single raw material. That is the policy of the non-aligned countries—76 of them, which met in Algeria in September. That conference was largely ignored, but it was from that conference that the power was generated that led to the decision of October. That is the lesson that we have to learn.
Now I do not want to keep the House much longer but, if I may, I should like to say a word about the current situation.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him why he does not describe it as colonialism when, as he has just mentioned, the Arabs are in a position to dictate me foreign policy of independent African countries?
LORD WIGG: Really, my Lords, I shall have to organise a weekend school for the Liberals and teach them a few politics. Their ignorance is profound, and it really is frightening, because their Poujadism is popular at the moment and they do irreparable harm. But, you see, the Arabs did not use their colonialism. What they did—
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree—
LORD WIGG: One question at a time.
LORD AVEBURY: May I—
LORD WIGG: One at a time. They did not use their power: they used the power of persuasion. Again, the noble Lord does not listen. In 1956 there were three, only three—Tito, Jawaharial Nehru and Nasser. That was not a popular doctrine, so the Zionist lobby in America moved the arm of Dulles. He wanted to believe it, and support for the Aswan Dam was cut off, just like that. The poor, ill Eden followed suit, so we got Suez. Now the three have grown. At Algiers there were 76 non-aligned countries—
LORD AVEBURY: I am afraid—
LORD WIGG: Let me finish. The noble Lord has asked a question; let me answer it in my own way. The 76 included all the African countries, so they were a party to the action that was taken. Does the noble Lord not see?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is ducking my question, and if he will kindly answer it without any more of the childish abuse to which he is so much given I should be grateful. Will he tell me why, if the Arabs are in a position to dictate the foreign policy of independent African countries by threatening to withhold oil from them if they do not toe the line, that should not be described as colonialism?
LORD WIGG: Colonialism consists of exploitation. This is not exploitation. They are going to say to South Africa sooner or later, as they are saying to Holland. "Unless you abandon your policy of apartheid, then we will cut off your oil supplies." This is not exploitation.
LORD JANNER: Would the noble Lord forgive me? I am obliged to him.
LORD WIGG: I am sorry, but this is becoming—
LORD JANNER: No, it is not becoming. What the noble Lord in fact did was to proclaim himself as deliverer of Israel by suggesting that those who know Israel and her policy well—like myself, I hope—are doing an injury. Would the noble Lord say whether he agrees that the use of the blackmail of oil against the various
684
countries in the world is something of which he approves; and, if he does approve, does he not realise that that is an attack on Britain as well as it is on any other country, and is anti-British?
LORD WIGG: I am sorry. Of course I approve. I approve of the action which the Arabs have taken.
LORD JANNER: In Israel?
LORD WIGG: The action they have taken here by agreeing that the State of Israel must continue. They have agreed, and they have said to the Israelis, When you withdraw from those territories which you have occupied"—and they are completely on all fours with the Government in relation to Resolution 242—" "we will restore the oil cuts". That has my full and 100 per cent. support. It has my complete support.
Now I wanted, if I could, just for a moment or two, to deal with something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, on the question of oil and how it ought to be handled. He told us that he had been on the motorway and that the public at large were obeying the rules because very few cars passed him. When he came over to apologise to me for having to leave, I said, "In that case, you must have been doing a 'ton', if very few cars passed you". If noble Lords do not understand the language of the young, may I say that it means that he must have been going at 100 miles an hour. Because I was on a motorway on Saturday and Sunday and in several periods of ten minutes I was never passed by fewer than a hundred cars. I would say to the Government that one of the things they should do—and I would plead with them to do this—is to impose a speed limit on motorways of 50 miles an hour and authorise the police to prosecute. I have got an old car, but by cutting down my speed to 50 miles an hour or less the benefit to my pocket in miles per gallon was really quite extraordinary. I am therefore sure that the Government are right in saying that we should restrict our speed limits. It is perfectly clear, from the behaviour of people in and around London, particularly in the SouthEast—they behave differently in North Staffordshire—that the Government should invoke the law to protect the majority. That is the first point.

685
My second point is this. I listened to the broadcast of Mr. Walker last night. Again, I thought he spoke with extreme clarity and put his case quite strongly, but not strongly enough. He said that he did not believe there was any need for rationing. Neither do I. Again I believe that the Government's policy here is broadly right. If, in a society as complex as ours, we start to ration, we must remember the difficulties of war time and the difficulties of 1956. There were only 4 million cars then; there are 15 million now, and large areas which are not served by any transport at all. I think the Government are completely right in doing what they are doing. But what I think should happen is that Mr. Walker should speak with much greater force than in fact he has spoken.
In an earlier part of this debate I mentioned a noble Lord who, so I learned, had taken away 200 gallons of petrol in tins and had switched over from his big car to his small car. On the other side of the picture, this morning I went to see Mr. Eric Morley, whose background is similar to my own: he is an ex-Regular soldier. He is 53 years of age and the head of a very big firm. I was delighted to learn from him—he has more guts than I have, but then I have never had a Potts fracture—that he has given up his cars and uses a moped, for which I think he needs only half a gallon of petrol at a time. He told me how quickly he got to work in the morning, and he also told me that this had spread throughout his firm. So I am quite sure that if the Government would speak, and speak clearly, they would get a response. Here I join with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing: they should use the language of people. Just explain to them that they are really behaving not only like sheep but like the Gadarene swine, because they are cutting their own throats. This needs to be said and said clearly. But now let me say a word in defence of the British public. We are served by a media—the B.B.C., the I.T.V. and the Press—who, by their handling of this problem and by exploiting every difficulty that arises, have increased the doubt and fear; and I say that beyond any shadow of doubt. I thought the "Panorama" broadcast was as near political illiteracy as anything one could find.
686
My Lords, may I turn to my Labour Party colleages. Here I go full circle on the issue about the position of the Arabs. It is perfectly clear that if Mr. Eric Varley, the spokesman for the Labour Party, had been in charge of our affairs, by this time we should have not only petrol rationing but also we should be in the same position as Holland; because Mr. Varley made a clear anti-Arab speech and one almost suspected that the brief had its origin in the Israeli Embassy. It is perfectly clear, it seems to me, that as a nation we have to face the fact that our difficulties are very great. Provided that we find that facing difficulties, facing a challenge, is a source of strength, I hope—perhaps I may use the word "pray"—that we shall surmount them. But in order to do it, as I have said so many times in this House and I almost apologise for saying it again, we must realise that there is no way out of our difficulties unless we face them ourselves and are prepared ruthlessly, in the way that Mr. Powell does, to speak out and say the truth—even if the truth involves admitting that we have been wrong on previous occasions and that the remedies we put forward are not so palatable as we should like. In the present situation, so grievous is our plight that there is no possible alternative to telling the truth and facing the consequences.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL. OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, for some 37 minutes your Lordships have had varied and stimulating fare from one whose patriotism we never question; one to whom it is always stimulating, if also provocative, to listen, and one whose stance sometimes takes one by surprise. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will expect me to pursue the many points of interest which he raised during these 37 minutes, because the hour is already advanced.
My Lords, there are two ways of satisfying wants: either by producing more or desiring less. This is a question of values for our civilisation, and it may well be that the current exercise in restraint on petrol consumption is a healthy exercise in an otherwise selfish age. But that civilisation, selfish or not, is challenged by the OPEC monopoly.

687
One cannot help thinking of under-civilised countries with enormous energy bent on the ruin of their more highly civilised neighbours, and to that end ready to bring the Western world to its knees. My Lords, when the Vandals poured out their energy upon the declining civilisation of the Roman Empire living in license and wrapped with soft wings, the sack of Rome followed.
How can we defend ourselves and, in particular, break the OPEC monopoly? It would be tempting to follow Lord Energlyn's fascinating speech about tidal power and its harnessing to steel, iron and aluminium. On tidal power I would only hope that the Government may be inclined to look at the possibilities of Kylesku, on Eddrachillis Bay in the Assynt parish of Sutherland in Scotland. Having said that, I should like to pursue one aspect of the power picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn—the aspect of liquid transmission. When the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, so ably and interestingly introduced this debate, and we are much obliged to him, he listed some of the alternative sources of power; but, curiously enough, he did not mention natural gas, although only yesterday Dr. J. Birk, a director of B.P., produced figures at the Financial Times oil conference in London suggesting that the gas industry in Britain might well more than double the natural gas supplies currently received by the end of the decade.
The fact is that natural gas is often flared off and undeveloped for lack of incentive. Here, I must confess that I shall have to read with great care, as in any case I should wish to do, the most interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield. But he quoted United Nations figures suggesting, as I understood him, that 76 per cent. of the world's natural gas resources would run out by the end of the century. This is not the information given to me by other experts, who have suggested that potential Free World natural gas resources may well be sufficient to exceed between 20 and 30 times the current annual crude oil production of the world, and do that for many years to come, perhaps as many as thirty years. The figures I have been given are those published in the Oil and Gas Journal of December, 1972,
688
and they show that in the free world, crude oil production per annum is of the order of 2,000 million tons, while proven natural gas reserves in the free world are taken to be the equivalent of more than 1,200 million tons of crude oil a year for thirty years.
These figures may well be exaggerated, but they demand investigation. The Free World countries which have critically large proven natural gas reserves, at the present time largely undeveloped, are in the Caribbean area, with as much natural gas at the moment as would be the equivalent of 75 million tons of crude oil a year perhaps for thirty years; Algeria, where the figure is 105 and Nigeria where the figure is 40. Natural gas can be economically converted to alcohol, so my expert friends tell me and, against the ever-present danger of being engulfed by the holy glow of scientific confusion, may I say shortly this? The operation of converting natural gas to alcohol avoids the heavy capital costs of liquefaction and regasification connected with its transport as L.N.G. It avoids, or partly substitutes for, the heavy capital cost of oil refining. It avoids the inefficiency of converting naphtha to high octane. It offers an environmentally acceptable source of high octane in motor spirit and it offers cheaper transport whether by tanker or pipeline.
My Lords, such an operation, so the experts tell me, could produce alcohol from natural gas at about the overall cost of crude oil refining to acceptable environmental standards; and this would be using a source which is so abundant that it would be equivalent to current crude oil production of something like 20 to 30 times over for thirty years to come. Such an operation on a large enough scale could provide an economic alternative to OPEC crude; such an operation could, it is believed, put a downward pressure on OPEC prices and those of liquid petroleum generally.
My Lords, measurement is knowledge, and an energy policy directed to this end would need to be based on a million calculations which only the computer and a highly competent, complex mathematical model would be able to undertake. Indeed, only such a combination of mechanisms could provide the quantitative data on which long-term and critically flexible policy decisions could be based.

689
Is this something that any inter-Departmental Committee, no matter at how high a level, could master and supervise? Can one picture the D.T.I., the D.O.E., the Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office putting together a Committee which would manipulate such a complex mechanism, so that Ministers could take the right political decisions based on properly balanced scientific and quantitative data? These data have to take account of tile aspects of chemistry, of the aspects of engineering, of the aspects of transport by sea and land, of the political aspects of OPEC, of the prices and costs of alternative energy sources, of new discoveries, of new environmental factors, of the effects on the balance of payments, of the effects of this or that course on our revenue accounts, to say nothing of the effects upon our security.
My Lords, measurement is knowledge. It is just such factors that the Energy Research Unit of Queen Mary College, in London, has spent five years constructing a mathematical model to measure and manage. It is worked, it is guided and criticised, supervised and overseen, by a steering committee on which the motor industry, the petroleum industry, the chemical industry, and the D.T.I.—at a very high level—are all represented. Such is the sort of prototype of an Advisory Energy Board which is still in the minds of many noble Lords in this House who have spoken already this afternoon, or who have spoken in other debates. I personally was much comforted to sense that my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who matched his excellent and well-applauded performance at the oil conference yesterday with an equally distinguished speech this afternoon, was showing an openness to the sorts of ideas that are in noble Lords' minds. One is thinking of an Advisory Board; one is thinking of a Board that can manage the assembly of mathematical models and computer data to provide the relevant quantitative data.
My Lords, predictions are notoriously difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, himself said, they are often wrong. I also have found that the more one seeks to speak the truth the more difficult it can become to be precise. Here I seek the indulgence of the House to make an apology which I had thought of making as a personal statement, but
690
which seemed to fit naturally into the scope of this debate. I crave the indulgence of the House for the apology I now have to make. On October 25 last year your Lordships' House debated Commons Amendments to the Anglesey Pipeline Terminal Bill, and we were discussing the inclusion or exclusion of words inserted by another place to subject the burying of the pipe in question "so far as is practicable". According to Hansard of that date I said (cols. 2231–2):
"…I think I am in a position to say …that Shell intend absolutely that it shall be under the sea-bed.…I understand absolutely that this is the intention.…"
My Lords, those were my words. In the event, it was found physically almost impossible, and environmentally quite impossible, to do this very thing over about one-tenth of the distance concerned—some 365 out of 3,300 metres. I am sorry if I misled the House. What I said was said entirely in good faith. If I misled the House, it was accidental, it was inadvertent. But I did mislead the House, and I ask the House to exercise its familiar indulgence and accept my apology. I am glad both that the D.T.I. have found that Shell in fact did the right thing, and that the Technical Sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea—of the report of which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to send me a copy—thought likewise.
Having said that, my Lords, and having craved the indulgence of the House, may I come back to the main point? One thing emerges from all this: predictions are hazardous. They are much needed, none the less, in formulating an energy policy, and just as necessary if that policy has to be flexible as if it has to be rigid. A useful instrument for providing the basic data for a flexible long-term policy, one that can be varied from year to year, is a sophisticated mathematical model used under the direction of a highly sophisticated steering committee embracing civil servants, industry and the world of learning. This, in short, is the way to tackle the possibilities not only of natural gas but of other alternative fuels with a view to breaking the OPEC monopoly. This, at heart, is still the case of those of us who believe that something like an Advisory Enegry Board or Commission is desirable. I hope—and

691
having listened to my noble friend Lord Polwarth this afternoon I am encouraged in this belief—that the Government may yet grasp that whatever be the rhetoric used in advancing this cause and this case, it is a rhetoric of beneficence.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I have a moment before the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, addresses your Lordships? I want to say how much some of us at least appreciate the words of the noble Earl in relation to the Anglesey oil terminal pipeline. His statement in the House last year has been the cause of a good deal of misapprehension and difficulty, and quite frankly has given rise to accusations of bad faith. I think it is most gratifying that the noble Earl should have felt it desirable to make the statement in your Lordships' House. I am sure the people that have been writing to me from Anglesey and other parts of North Wales will feel very much happier now that he has acknowledged his mistake. I am sure that it was entirely in good faith that he did make a mistake.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. May I repeat now what I said on that occasion: she is always irresistible, even at this distance.
7.17 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that there is a need for an advisory board in energy and that it should be established as soon as possible. My Lords, although I am originally a coalmining engineer, and as such would be expected to speak on this problem, I am sure that this subject has been adequately covered, especially by my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, and other speakers. But before I leave the subject I would recommend to Members of your Lordships' House a copy of the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines for 1972. In that Report there is ample evidence to support the claim of the miners that they deserve extra-special treatment away above all other industries if we are to recruit for the future to what has now been admitted to be a vital key industry. The Report is factual, but it does not require any great degree of sympathy to read between the lines. The
692
few of us on this side of your Lordships' House who have actually worked in coalmines know that such Reports convey more than part of the miners' story, but they do help those who have never had such an experience to achieve a closer understanding.
I now turn to the main purpose of this speech. In view of the fact that the known reserves of oil have been assessed and reassessed many times, as well as the expansion in consumption over the next 25 years or more—both I had to calculate—I ask, what steps have been taken to investigate the use of other sources of fuel after the termination of the limited life of fossil fuels? By that I mean positive steps. Has any departmental or other investigation been made—and I am not referring to nuclear energy now—on which a report could be published? While geologists and the oil industry have been long aware of the limited supply of oil, have the Government sponsored specific research into this important question of alternative sources of energy? My question might appear impertinent, but it requires a pertinent answer. I will provide one example of the kind of research I mean. I refer to an article in the Baltimore Sunday Sun of October 21 of this year, which refers to the increased production of hydrogen in the United States. Already 60,000 cubic feet per annum has been produced for manufacturing purposes. Experiments are now being conducted to use hydrogen as a supplementary fuel and as an additive to petrol for use in cars. Some engineers have already forecast the use of hydrogen engines in planes, lorries, buses and trains by the year 2000.
My Lords, independent preliminary research work has also been carried out at Oxford. I am going to quote a relevant section of a report passed to me from G. R. Thompson of Oxford, who is engaged on research work. This report outlines a programme of research into the feasibility of the use of hydrogen for various purposes to augment or replace petrol. The report states:
"The maintenance of our social activities, particularly in regard to transportation, will require a medium analagous to petroleum for the distribution of energy of nuclear origin. Hydrogen seems well suited to this role. Preliminary investigations of its production from water and its combustion in small power units are promising … adequate safety in the distibution network seems technically feasible."

693
My Lords, I should now like to return for a few moments to the important article in the Baltimore Sunday Sun. It refers to Jules Verne's prediction some hundred years ago that water would one day be used as a fuel furnishing an inexhaustible source of heat and light. One can ask whether or not it is safer to depend on the visionaries of science fiction to forecast our future than the academic conclusions and other negative attitudes of Governments and their establishments. It certainly seems that the United States, whether due to pressure from their scientists or the realisation that the products of research must be given priority, are deciding, as before in their history, to take immediate action to solve the problem of the sources of energy.
My Lords, because of the loosening of our ties with the United States of America following our joining the European complex, we cannot expect to benefit from the exchange of scientific knowledge as before. It is therefore our duty to realise that we are on our own, to imagine the worst, and then to take steps to avoid disaster. This turmoil could be our biggest blessing of the century if from it we can safeguard our supply of energy for the foreseeable future, and possibly further. In the meantime, we are in for a period of austerity. But, my Lords, the winter of our discontent could be a period of pregnancy, and the ideas conceived could produce results which will be a prodigy of achievement in solving our energy crisis. For instance, we have over the course of many years, and in particular in the last war, been able to face up to our problems and get over them.
Many years ago, that well-beloved Member of another place, the late Aneurin Bevan, observed that Britain was an island of coal surrounded by the sea and fish; it was a timely cognition. But the deeper import has not yet penetrated beyond the admiration for the pungency of his words. We are now at last aware of the importance of coal, and lately of North Sea oil and nuclear fission. We are as yet not aware of the importance of being surrounded by sea, although we know the value of fish as a food. We have a long coastline, and the sea can really be an inexhaustible supply of energy. No magic formula is needed;
694
only the pursuit of further research into the methods of producing hydrogen and by-products from the sea. It is now mainly a problem for mechanical engineers. It will be expensive, but the results may justify Concorde, the Channel Tunnel and perhaps even Maplin: but without an inexhaustible supply of fuel none of these projects will be justified in the light of the present turmoil. Even the hoped-for benefits from joining the Common Market could be dimmed after the foreseeable exhaustion of North Sea gas and oil. We are now attempting to safeguard the next 50 years.
I should like to suggest to the oil-producing countries of to-day that they should consider the fact that hydrogen can be used as a very important additive to their oil, and can extend the life of oil as a fuel very considerably. One could even advise the oil-producing countries to invest in the establishing of plants to produce hydrogen in Britain.
Many of us remember the problems of structuring the Mulberry Harbour, referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Many difficulties were emphasised, until Sir Winston Churchill banged the table and ended all further discussion by an order that the harbour must be completed at a certain date. And the miracle happened. We can expect similar negative attitudes from the various known sources, and we shall have to defeat them if the production of hydrogen is to succeed, as in the end it must. I should like to see a British Prime Minister once more bang the table and declare a date for the establishment of plant to extract hydrogen from the seas, and any other means to solve this problem. I have confined myself, because the hour is already late, to one possible source of energy. There are other sources already referred to in earlier speeches. My Lords, if ever there was a time for action, it is now.
7.30 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, four weeks ago to-day we had a debate on a Motion of mine which covered many of the points that have been dealt with this afternoon. 'Midst the encircling gloom, I have one bit of good news for your Lordships: I shall not inflict myself on your Lordships this evening for anything near even half the

695
time that I did on that occasion. However, there may be various repercussions from that debate which I think are somewhat relevant to this afternoon's discussion. One particular remark of mine was widely misreported—that was where I offered to tell your Lordships how my Devon neighbour made his car run on methane gas produced from manure. It was reported that I would tell anybody all over the world the secret of this. The result has been that I have had inquiries from Hawaii to New Zealand and from France to behind the Iron Curtain. I have a cutting from a New Zealand paper, the heading of which reads: "Put a Chicken in your Tank". Your Lordships may be amused to hear part of a letter sent to me by a Mr. O'Riorden, who wrote to me from the Irish Republic as follows:
"Would it be artificial manure or the natural droppings of animals? Perhaps you would not tell me as I am an Irishman, but I often made poteen, so you would not be talking to a real amateur. I write to you in confidence because I know you must be an honourable person."
Being, of course, an honourable person, I have not mentioned his real name.
Going back to that earlier debate, I thought the Government's behaviour then was, to quote two other noble Lords who took part, rather less than gracious. In spite of the politest form of questioning by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, the noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones, Lord Tanlow, Lord Hoy, my noble friend Lord Kings Norton and other noble Lords, all we really got by way of answer was a scarcely disguised brush-off. Perhaps the interval of four weeks between that debate and this one initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will have given the Government time to come up with some of the answers which we did not receive on the former occasion, particularly concerning what most people have been demanding, namely, an alternative-to-oil energy policy and the establishment of a high-powered committee or commission to get on with producing just that.
The first prerequisite is to make quite sure that this commission has no representatives of the big oil companies on it. I quoted to your Lordships four weeks ago how the oil interests had blackmailed the Western Morning News into refusing
696
Mr. Harold Bates's advertisement for using methane gas for internal combustion engines. Four high-powered newspapermen have since written to me, thanking me for having said what I did. So it seems that this form of skulduggery has also been going on for some time. In to-day's Express there is another article on the subject, and in last Sunday's Telegraph a correspondent pointed out that the shale oil industry at Bathgate was closed down by a deliberate act of Government policy—in that case by levying the same tax on it as on imported oil. Who was responsible? Was it pressure from the oil companies? Remember that this was six years ago. But whatever the implications, to my mind the oil companies have a lot to answer for.
Again, I think it is criminal negligence not to have made arrangements for alternatives to oil long before now. Any Government which does not safeguard its people against blackmail by monopolistic unions is really failing in its duty. I do not care whether one talks about unions of miners, electricians, engine drivers or producers of Arab oil. They are all tarred with the same brush. I think one very important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg: that is, that the unions of other commodity makers will obviously soon be following suit. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to my speech a month ago as being "imaginative". Having carefully re-read the speeches made at the time in Hansard, I have come to the conclusion that the noble Lord's description was meant to be somewhat cynical. My criticism is of the Government's complete lack of imagination. Why have they not done anything about solar energy and the linear induction motor referred to by my noble friend Lord Kings Norton? That, you may say, is futuristic. All right then: why not start now? But what about now? When I say "now" I mean why is not something done about proved energy alternatives which either the Government (via the Treasury) or the oil companies have prevented us from making use of.
To take first, methane gas: is this not easily obtainable? Why is it that our sewerage works do not make it? Does not the Ogmore plant in Essex already make it, and was not a useful model of

697
how to make it from farmyard manure on show at the Royal at Stoneleigh a few years ago? I seem to remember it could be ordered on the spot. Would it be possible to confirm to the House that attached to the model was a house and a kitchen, proving that heating and cooking could be done by means of this plant? Did the oil companies kill it? Is it not a fact that before the First World War, the noble Lord, Lord Iliffe, ran his large house and farm machinery on this system in the Cambridge Breckland? Is it not a fact that we waste a quantity of this gas every year equivalent in energy to our annual production of coal? Is it not also a fact that we could produce this gas from coal without a mine, simply by boring down to the coal seams? Did they not try this once in Russia? Yet we import it from Algeria, or get it from the North Sea at some expense. We know that our cars and trucks can run on it, and that in Australia big inter-State lorries use it, as well as Melbourne taxicabs. Enough is known now of electric cars to dispose of many of the myths about them; but as I have dealt with the matter before I shall not repeat myself now.
Over 100 years ago, another noble Lord (the noble Lord, Lord Kelvin) made known the principle of the heat pump—but anyone can look up the encyclopwdia about this. Suffice it to say that you can extract heat from running water or sewerage. It is refrigeration in reverse. Is it not a fact that the buildings of the Eastern Electricity Board in Norwich are heated in this way from the River Nene? Does not Nuffield College at Oxford get its heat in this way from a branch of the sewers that run under the College? The Palace of Westminster, and all London along the Thames, could be heated in this way. Existing radiators could be used. Why use expensive oil which is in short supply and imported, when this energy is available on our own doorstep?
I will mention only one more source of energy to-night, and that is the one which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn—hydrogen. It is the commonest of our elements; when burned it produces only water, and therefore there is no pollution. I wonder whether the noble Lord has had his attention drawn to an article which appeared in The Times
698
a couple of months ago, when reference was made to the work of Doctors Abraham and Scheiner of the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. If that system works, it seems that hydrogen can be produced by using, over and over again, lithium and iodine. That means that you do not need the expensive electrolysis method we used in the past. To make the proposition even more attractive—and I am sure that the noble Lord does not need to be told—hydrogen can be easily absorbed on to plates of magnesium and released by moderate heat. Therefore, you do not need the big gas bags that were used during the First World War. Have the Government done anything about these things?
I am convinced that the ineptitude of Governments and the monopolistic greed of the big oil companies have largely got us into the state we are in to-day. Once the oil producers got together into a union, we should have seen the red light. Why should the Arabs sell us their oil? They have far too much foreign exchange as it is; they do not know what to do with it. Only three weeks ago along came an agent for a group, trying to buy, on my land, a site for caravans and holiday chalets. The agent told me that the money was coming from one of these oil companies. They offered a very handsome price. Although I did not fall for it, it indicates another way in which this oil situation is causing inflation. It seems to me that what we need is an Energy Commission possessing wide powers and adequate finance. There are many Members of your Lordships' House who could with advantage apply for membership of it—Lord Energlyn, Lord Kings Norton, Lord Wynne-Jones, to mention only three. We have the means in this country, we have the know-how. If we do not act fast, another country is going to do it, and your Lordships know what that means. If not, ask Barnes Wallis.
There is another question, perhaps somewhat irrelevant at the moment, which was not answered four weeks ago. At a time when we should be saying we are doing something about cutting down our dependence on oil, why have not the Government already announced that they are not going to build more oil-fired electricity stations, particularly the one at Plymouth? According to an article,

699
I think in the Economist, by an American called Dan Smith, it seems that the National Coal Board already have in use the type of machine to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, referred, which already practically does away with the need to have more than a couple of men underground. The article, which I think was written two years ago, more or less said, or inferred, that there would be opposition from the unions to the introduction of this machine, if that was so a couple of years ago, I would have thought, with people saying how short the industry is getting in manpower, that now would be the time to introduce this machine.
My Lords, I have only reiterated what I consider mainly unanswered questions from the debate on November 7. I should like to end with an apology to your Lordships' House. At 9.30 tomorrow morning I have an engagement of long standing some 20 miles from my home in Devon. That is over 200 miles away from here, and if I might be excused for not staying to the end of the debate I might get home at two o'clock to-morrow morning. I cannot drive more than 50 miles an hour. I have already ordered three copies of Hansard so that I might read the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
7.43 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, the question of our fuel requirements both now and in the future is of serious importance to this nation. We have a State of Emergency for the fifth time in five years and the Government have taken massive powers under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill. This Bill in itself is an admission that the Government and the country face an exceptionally serious crisis. We not only face an energy crisis, but we also face an economic one, which puts in danger the growth policy—the only surviving policy of the Selsdon programme upon which this Government were elected. Jobs and whole industries are in jeopardy and the balance of payments, I believe, is heading for a gigantic deficit.
It is important that we should examine the real reasons for the energy crisis and not the ones put forward as a political cover up. We face two kinds of energy problem—the short-term and the long-
700
term. The short-term problems are in electricity and coal. They will pass, as a settlement one way or the other will have to come about. They are not deep-seated, though reading the Press and listening to the television media one can forgive people for thinking that they are. The Government have deliberately distorted the whole situation for political reasons. It is the long-term energy problem that is of the utmost seriousness for the future of us all in England. It is the problem of oil which has been played down to a considerable extent, and for political reasons. The electrical engineers were first blamed and now it is the miners. The Government have deliberately tangled the long-term and the short-term problems together, as the Prime Minister did at Nelson when he referred to the combined effects of the miners' action and that of the Arab States.
The real reason for to-day's crisis is the uncertainty about oil supplies, and the Government cannot blame the miners for that. It was the engineers who were first blamed for the introduction of the Emergency Regulations, though their action had had little effect at that time. But that pretence has been given up and it is now the miners who are made the scapegoats in this confused propaganda that the people are hearing. I will be the first to admit that the miners' overtime ban will have a discernible effect, but the way the Home Secretary put the case for the Emergency Regulations made us believe that the miners were ruining the nation. He said—and this was only during the first three days of the overtime ban—that the loss in output was 20 to 25 per cent. of normal production. How he could arrive at that figure in the first day after the overtime ban, which had not yet had its effect in the pits, I cannot see. To-day we can view the situation after the third week of the overtime ban. To-day there is a 30 per cent. loss in production. I do not deny that the overtime ban is biting, and hurting, but there is no law in this land to my knowledge that can force men to work overtime if they do not want to do it. The loss is bad, but there are stocks of coal for our power stations and domestic consumers for 10 weeks even if the pits stop completely. But there is no stoppage and coal is still coming out of

701
the ground. For myself, and also for the miners, I earnestly hope that this dispute will not come to a stoppage. The situation is bad and an end to this dispute is vitally needed; but so far there is not the total disruption that the Government forecast when proclaiming their State of Emergency.
The real disruption to-day is the uncertainty of the future. What are the reasons for the miners' union declining the offer which has been made to them? The Government's propaganda is that they are refusing a 13 per cent. increase. This is not true. The Secretary of State says that a miner working unsocial hours will get an increase of more than £9 a week. How many would qualify for this? The answer is, 14,000 out of 280,000, and to get this amount these lucky men would have to go on permanent night shift—that is, to work through the night every day of their lives. I do not know what noble Lords may think, but as one who has worked night shift in the mines I know that it plays havoc with family life. All the other parts of the offer—unsocial hours, efficiency pay and all the rest—affect only 95,000 miners out of the 280,000 in any given week. Miners are leaving the industry at the rate of 600 a week. We lost 17,000 last year, and they will not be attracted back, and neither will we get recruits by telling them what they can earn by working all the unearthly hours of the night.
In a statement some 21 months ago, the Home Secretary, then the Secretary of State for Employment, on the publication of the Wilberforce Report on the last dispute, pointed out the importance of what the Report called "an adjustment factor." He said the Government accepted that, because this adjustment factor, and the miners' claim, in the words of the Report, "should be given exceptional national treatment". The Wilberforce Report pointed out the need for this adjustment factor, and it said:
"When a distortion of trend arises it has to be recognised as due for correction."
Again, the Report, in paragraph 17, said:
"A serious fall has occurred in the relative position of the mine workers, when compared with those in manufacturing industries."
702
Paragraph 20 of this Report stated:
"The fall in the ranking of coalmining pay has been quite unwarranted."
This was what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said and that was what the Secretary of State accepted on behalf of the Government in his statement of February 21, 1972. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said has not been carried out. The Wilberforce Report deplored the fall in miners' wages to below the average in the manufacturing industries and gave an award which put it right. Miners' wages to-day are below the average of the manufacturing industries. To put their wages level with manufacturing industries needs an increase of £3 a week, and to put the miners' wages back to the level which Wilberforce put them needs an increase of nearly £5 a week. Even under the N.C.B. offer, only half the miners would return to the wage level of Wilberforce, and a quarter of the men would still not be earning even the average wage in manufacturing industries. It is no wonder that there is an exodus from the mines, and that these men trained to win the coal needed for the nation are departing to earn better money in the factories.
Another piquant situation is that men are leaving the employment of the National Coal Board and going into the pits as employees of private contractors to earn twice as much as they did with the N.C.B. Can you imagine a man working in a pit for a private contractor getting twice as much as a workman working for the N.C.B. and doing the same work? Discontent is bound to arise in situations like that. Money to miners means the basic wage. Minimum wages in mines are maximum wages. There is no wages drift in the mining industry because all wages settlements are national wage settlements and there is no adjustment to them by pit bargaining. This is the reason why, in a period of statutory wage restraint, the general level of wages in the manufacturing industries has risen relative to the miners' pay, whereas in the mines a coal cutter underground cannot have a new name invented for his job to get round the Pay Code.
We are discussing an energy crisis, which I think is serious, but in facing

703
this crisis the Government are not playing fair. When it comes to oil they are ready to pay whatever is asked of them to appease the oil countries with increased prices, together with the fact that they will determine our foreign policy. If we do not agree with them in the future they will cut off the oil, as Sheikh Yamani has told us today. When it comes to coal, it is a different tune. The Government are happy to accept the dictates of the oil producers, but when it comes to coal the Government as consumers insist on dictating to the producers. The Press and the Government have been agitating that the miners should have a ballot on the offer. If a ballot is the cure, the Government have no need to wait for the miners to organise one. They can do it themselves. Their Industrial Relations Act was introduced to bring about peace and tranquility to industry, but it has proved otherwise, as we said when the Bill was before this House. Nevertheless, in Section 141 the Act says:
"Where it appears to the Secretary of State that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute or strike, or any irregular industrial action short of a strike has begun or is likely to begin, the Secretary of State may apply to the industrial court for an order requiring a ballot to be taken."
We are not wanting a ballot; it is the Government side who are clamouring for it. Why do not the Government use the powers they possess. Is it because they saw the hopelessness of the ballot they took among the railwaymen? If the Minister will not do his own job he cannot expect the miners' union to do it for him. Again, the miners do not want from the Government lessons on democracy.
The miners have been consulted extensively on the issues. The claim came from its National Conference. The claim was made and the National Conference was recalled. The matter was sent back to the pits and the branches voted unanimously for an overtime ban. This dispute can be settled only by reason on both sides. The Government should give greater leeway for constructive negotiations. The Home Secretary gave his blessing within Phase 3 which met the requirements of the firemen. As champion of the adjusting factor I have talked about, the Home Secretary can advise the Cabinet on how to do the
704
same for miners. That way a settlement can be reached which will stop miners leaving the mines, ensure Britain the supplies of fuel she needs and allow the progress to go on between the N.U.M. and the N.C.B. that they were making before this unnecessary dispute arose. We have seen in these past few weeks the Press attempting to create public prejudice against them. They say that the miners are defying the law or engaged in breaking the law.
Then, there has been no breach of the law by the miners' union. Under the Counter-Inflation Act, as the House knows, the procedure is that the Government set up a Pay Board. Parliament has approved a Price and Pay Code and that Code has no legal authority. Legal authority arises only if a restriction order on remuneration is made by the Pay Board on a proposed settlement. In the miners' case there is no proposed settlement by the Pay Board and no order against any settlement has been made by the Pay Board. Even if there were an order against a settlement and the miners' union disregarded it, it is only the Attorney General who could give authority to proceed against the union, and he also has power to override the Pay Board at any time he likes. It is apparent, therefore, that there is no ground at all for saying that the miners are engaged in breaking the law, or threatening to break the law. All they are doing is to engage in negotiations in support of a claim which they consider to be a justifiable one.
I ask the Ministers on the Front Bench: What law are the miners breaking? What sections of which Act are being broken? What order of the Pay Board are the miners refusing to accept, or trying to overturn? Why is the Attorney General not making an order to release action in the courts? Has the National Coal Board, under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, decided to bring an action against the miners because of the overtime ban? The Government cannot find an answer to these questions, because what the Government have done is to transfer political decisions on to the courts and on to the Pay Board. At the same time, they are trying to pretend they can draw from the courts legal authority for what is really political propaganda. This form of deliberate confusion is

705
designed to build up for the Government a good position in public opinion.
Another ridiculous posture of the Government is that the overtime ban is a threat to the Constitution and Parliament. We are asked to believe that miners, who are getting out of mining at the rate of 600 a week because they can get better and cleaner jobs, are threatening the Constitution, which is really nonsensical. My Lords, when this dispute is over, as it will be, there will be a coal shortage next year, not due to industrial dispute but due to wastage; and if it continues at the present rate, when all is peaceful there will not be sufficient men to get the coal. Let the Government get out of their mind that the unions are the problem. The real problem is recruiting men into the mines, and unless they are forthcoming the position will be serious. Maybe some of the fierce critics of the miners outside will volunteer and help the nation to get the coal in ensuing years. But let us face the fact that unless the Government are prepared to pay the miners enough, this problem cannot be solved. Are the Government to-day trying to make overtime compulsory? Are they saying in effect that if men do not work overtime they are undermining the Government? Well, if they think that, they will believe anything.
Then we have the threats of an Election. Was this done to frighten people? We all know as politicians that it is the Prime Minister who calls an Election. He decides when we go to the country, and I for one would welcome the chance. It would not be an Election based on bashing the trade unions or on whether the trade unions hold too much power. It would give the Conservatives an opportunity to explain what their policies have done to the people of this country. They will have to explain why the pound has lost 25 per cent. of its value; how there has been a 40 per cent. increase in food prices; a 13 per cent. bank rate; a huge balance-of-payments deficiency; rents up by 30 shillings a week under their Housing Finance Act; an 11 per cent. mortgage rate; the fantastic prices of houses; the huge reduction in house building, and our terms of entry into the Common Market which are crippling us to-day. These are the issues
706
that will be faced in an Election, not an overtime ban by the miners. Whenever in the pits an explosion takes place and men lose their lives, when men are hurled down a shaft at 60 miles an hour to eternity, when men are drowned by inrushes of water, we get sympathy and sentiment by the bucketful. But when men ask for an increase in wages to meet what Government policy has done to their wages, we are attacked right, left and centre. It is about time that this sympathy we get when a catastrophe hits the pits was translated in real terms into wages for the hazards and work the miners undertake for the nation.
As I have said, this fuel crisis is one of oil. From 1955, when the big change to oil started, miners' Members of Parliament in another place have warned both Tory and Labour Governments that years ahead a fuel crisis would arise and that, at the rate the Western World was using oil, the Arabs would conduct a conservation policy and restrict output, with higher prices, and would conserve their oil. We requested, time after time, that pit closures should be slowed down and that we should not make the economy dependent on imported fuel. We always said that the Middle East was so unstable that some day we should find ourselves in difficulty. That day has now arrived, as a result of this country's having based its economy too much on oil. I never thought, when I was Front-Bench speaker for thirteen years in the House of Commons on fuel and power matters, and gave those warnings, that the day would come when we should appease the oil countries; I never thought we should reach the stage when, to get oil, the oil countries would determine our foreign policy. Yet this has happened.
The rundown of the coal industry has gravely damaged our industrial strength. The rundown was based on too narrowly commercial a view of profits, costs and prices. At least what we said for years is now being grasped: that there was no permanent guarantee of cheap, plentiful oil. We urged for the maintenance of coal in our economy of 180 million tons a year. I remember Lord Robens, as Chairman, fighting for 200 millions in the economy; but no Government, either Tory or Labour, would listen to

707
our pleas. Even the present Prime Minister, on December 1, 1966, said:
"In my opinion the closure of pits should move as fast as possible, and faster than it has been doing."
He made the same mistake as the Labour Government did with that advice because they closed the pits fast after that—and what has been the result? Ghost villages were created; mining stock was lost to the industry and it will never return; those who are in the pits are getting out, and they in turn are keeping their sons from going into the pit. That has been the result of the policies of the past, and it has made us so dependent upon oil, with all the consequences that we face in the future.
This oil problem loomed ahead of us long before the Arab-Israeli war. Although the issues of the Middle East war brought the oil crisis much more sharply into focus, we were bound to face a long-term policy of conservation by the Arab States. Those who have followed the policy of the OPEC countries know that this is their future policy. They intend to have their own equipment to make use of their own oil to the advantage of their own countries, and I cannot blame them for it as it is their oil. Strange as it may seem, this is a policy that I would advise our Government to operate in respect of our North Sea resources. We ought to have a policy, not of trying to get it all out in one year, or two years or three years, but of conserving it. We should not try to get it out in the shortest possible time. We should make use of our reserves to benefit our own country. No doubt there will arise problems of Britain's relationship with the Common Market. We are sitting on great coal reserves—more than the other Common Market countries. We have oil and natural gas on the Continental Shelf. We have the greatest know-how in nuclear energy and we can build up in the future a very powerful situation. It is not in the British interests, whichever Government may be in power, that because the Government took us into the Common Market, we should accept as a fact that the reserves should be regarded as European reserves. Sitting as we are on massive reserves, the national interest must be paramount as the Government consider the position of our own raw materials. It must be made clear to all
708
that our North Sea reserves are an essential national British interest and are not to be traded away for the vague idea of a united Europe. North Sea oil will be expensive, but nevertheless the reserves of oil and natural gas will be a boon to us in our balance of payments problem.
What we should now do is to get the dual-fired stations in electricity on to coal. We ought to have electrification of the railways as sharply as possible; we ought to have massive research into improving existing energy sources and towards discovering new ones, and we should also clear off the roads the great lorries carrying goods that ought to go by rail. In future years coal has to play a larger part than it has in the last 15 years. There ought to be a long-term plan to achieve an optimum level of coal production, and from where it can most effectively be produced. Coal costs nothing in foreign exchange and is mined by a body of responsible workers. In this context it is more sensible to pay miners a living wage than to pay exorbitant prices (as we shall have to do) to the oil-producing countries. We must conserve our fossil fuels until nuclear power can take over a larger share of electricity generation, late in this century or early in the next.
Facing the nation is the fact that oil is no longer abundant, and the private motorist and the road haulier will find that they will have less choice of fuel suppliers. Fuel suppliers independent of the big oil companies will find it increasingly difficult to secure any fuel to sell. Secondly, petrol and diesel fuel will be increasingly expensive. The price of crude oil has already reached levels that were not expected until 1980. Iran is today holding an oil auction which looks like realising very high prices indeed. In the future we must use every endeavour to ease our economy from its dependence on imported oil, and all those who can help in this will be benefactors to this country. Although Sheikh Yamani has told us that there is no reason to ration petrol, I ask the Government not to trust that statement too much. It is clear that the cut of 20 per cent. in Britain's normal oil needs is to stand, which means that there will be a severe shortage throughout this winter. Sheikh Yamani has made it clear that

709
Arab oil supplies will flow or falter depending upon whether we support or oppose Arab policies in the Middle East. That means that the blackmail will go on and will not be limited to the present conflict in the Middle East. The situation for the future is, that whenever or where-ever the Arabs decide their interests are threatened, the oil weapon will be used against us.
For years past the National Union of Mineworkers have warned Governments that depending on Middle East oil was treading on a slippery slope and that the day would come when we should regret it. That day is now here. We must now develop our own resources and never again rely on Arab oil. We must not leave our wellbeing in the hands of oil countries who control the oil wells. My people, the miners, need no lectures on patriotism. Our past history as miners is one of undoubted patriotism. If we had an Election and the present Government were to win again, that would not cure the malady—there would continue to be marching feet from those in the mining industry unless decent wages were paid—nor would it get fuel dug from the earth.
I say to the Government, in conclusion, that we must get the fuel industries working contentedly so that we in this country may work out a fuel policy that will save us from future crises.
8.20 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, with the greatest attention and respect, but noble Lords would not expect me to follow him in that very remarkable speech, except in one or two respects, namely, concerning the conservation and husbandry of our fuel resources. I rise chiefly to make a plea for what perhaps I may be permitted to call my particular kind of Energy Commission, the kind of Standing Committee which I put to your Lordships on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, on November 7. I asked then that there should be set up a Standing Committee whose chief objective should be to study the transition which will inevitably be made sooner or later from hydrocarbon fuels to alternative sources of energy. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord
710
Taylor of Mansfield, and from the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that in some respects coal and natural gas resources are still enormous; nevertheless, they are not illimitable. At some time or other we shall have to make the great change.
I believe that at least some of our present difficulties are due to lack of imaginative planning a decade ago, and that a permanent agency, undisturbed by changes in Government, would be of the greatest value in plotting our energy course ahead. Obviously, the course would be changed from time to time. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, made this point clearly. We could not plan a course which would last without change for years ahead, but the Commission could take account all the time of the trends which are influencing us. Despite the recent discoveries of new sources of oil and gas, it is not too soon to plan for the days when these fuels will be, if not exhausted, at least getting very expensive to win.
I think the forward thinking would be of two kinds. First, in the shorter term this Standing Committee which I urge upon the House should plan the much more economic use of the hydrocarbon fuels remaining to us. To-day, we use them in an appallingly wasteful manner and we must learn how to husband our resources. For example, we could economise in the energy used for domestic and industrial heating, as has been said already this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. We could carry much further than we have in the past the utilisation of the heat rejected by power stations and industrial processes. In some new housing schemes and in blocks of fiats we could use solar energy for domestic heating, using quite simple heat exchangers on the roof, as is done already in various parts of the world. We get quite enough sun for this to make a useful contribution to the energy husbandry programme. We could move towards automobile engines of smaller capacity and could well economise by encouraging light vans and commercial vehicles to copy their larger brethren in moving to diesel engines. These are just a few examples. Great savings could be made by a programme which embraced a number of small contributions. Such a policy would be designed to hold the fort, so to speak, while the great new sources of the future

711
were being harnessed and the necessary apparatus for them was being developed.
In the speech I made to your Lordships' House on November 7, I discussed some of these new sources, and I do not intend to bore your Lordships by repeating them, except in one respect. I wish to emphasise what I said about the appalling problem presented by nuclear fission as a primary source of energy. There is the appalling problem of the safe disposal of the deadly atomic wastes. Without controlled nuclear fusion, I believe it would be wrong to allow ourselves to be entirely dependent, or largely dependent, upon nuclear fission for our primary source of energy.
If we are not, what is left? The winds, the tides, the waves, the waterfalls, the heat of the earth and the heat of the sun. When one does the necessary sums against the background of the energy demands of the future on what the winds, the waves and the tides can produce, one realises, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, said, that they can make only relatively small contributions to satisfying the global demand. When one starts to spell "energ…" one is never sure whether one is going to spell "energy" or "Energlyn" because these are almost synonymous. The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, speaks with the greatest possible authority. I entirely support and admire the vision he gave of a new South Wales using the power of the sea. But it is true, and I think he would agree, that whilst we can and must do all these things, and we must use our water power to the utmost, of all the things I mentioned the only ones that can take the place of oil, which is used on such an enormous scale, are either nuclear or solar energy. Of the two, I should prefer solar energy because it is a system which would produce no pollution and no dangerous wastes which we scarcely know what to do with.
One may say that this is looking too far into the future. I do not think it is; because the solar cell is today at the stage which nuclear fission was at 30 years ago. It is now that we should be thinking of developing and working towards what could be the salvation of the world in the year 2010 or 2020, or whatever it may be. The great inexhaustible source of the sun about which
712
I spoke to your Lordships a month ago can sustain us as far ahead as thought can reach; but we have a lot of work to do, a lot of research, a lot of development and much construction. The Energy Transition Committee, or my version, if I may say so, of the Energy Commission, which in her reply on November 7 the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said was an idea that the Government should note and consider, would advise on how solar energy should be absorbed and translated.
There are certainly several ways, some biological and some physical. A month ago I instanced the widespread use of solar cells as a means of generating electricity. Of course, that electricity would be used partly in the way we use electricity now, but some would probably be used to produce fuels for industrial and vehicular use. For example, hydrogen could be produced by the electrolysis of water. It could be burnt as a fuel in internal combustion engines with the great advantage that it would cause no pollution; it would produce only water. But a great deal of work would be necessary to devise safe conditions. I believe that another more hopeful possibility would be to combine it with carbon dioxide to make methanol, another liquid fuel which could be used in internal combustion engines with as much facility as we now use petrol.
In these few minutes I have been trying to indicate the kinds of forward thoughts which I believe the Energy Transition Committee would have if it came into being. I am not going to take up much more of your Lordships' time, but this Energy Transition Committee would show the way in which we could provide for a future without embarrassing periods such as we are now going through and without, in the longer term, experiencing acute shortages as the hydrocarbon fuels dry up. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replies he will be able to give some hope that such a Standing Committee as I have envisaged may be created. In conclusion, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who in these debates almost always follows me, for the fact that I cannot stay to hear his speech because I have another appointment; but I hope to get back in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
8.30 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, for those kind remarks from the noble Lord, I am grateful. On many occasions I have followed the noble Lord, and I am quite sure the House is all the better for the expertise in his speeches. I liked his phrase that we are now in for energy husbandry, and I will use that as a peg for my speech. I will try to take a leaf out of his book, because he was kind enough to delay the House with that excellent speech for only about 10 minutes. That is sometimes the fate of many of us; sometimes we are lucky and early in the debate, and other times, because of the extent and importance of the debate, we are lower down, and it would be unfair to delay the House too long. Consequently, I am going to omit about 80 per cent. of what I was going to say. Anyway it has been said.
I want to add this. To-day has been a teach-in again; there have been some brilliant speeches, and none more constructive and helpful than those of my two noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Blyton who have worked in the mining industry most of their lives and know what they are talking about. That is what hurt me when the Lord Chancellor, in that after-dinner speech, quite unnecessarily—I do not think he meant to be malicious; I have known him about 35 years and he goes off half cock sometimes—made reference to the miners and the mining industry and their patriotism. The villages of South Wales are full of war memorials, as well as those in Durham, Yorkshire and Fife, to miners who had to be called from the trenches in order to cut coal—war memorials of those who never will come back. We had to prevent miners going out as sappers, in World War I particularly. So let us get rid of this stupid inference that they are unpatriotic.
Let us boil the manpower problem down to a sentence: the miners have to work overtime because we have not enough miners. That is the answer, and if we stayed here three days and three nights no other answer would come. The reason is that the mining valleys of Great Britain provide fewer and fewer recruits to the mining industry. It was fascinating to listen to my noble friends Lord Energlyn and Lord Arwyn, a mining engineer and a professor of geology, who brought out the
714
possibilities of some future approach. It is worth reminding this House, when we talk about trade unions being unconstructive, that in 1972 the T.U.C. brought out an integrated national fuel policy based on the maximum use of Britain's indigenous fuels of coal, natural gas and oil. The N.U.M. demanded that such a policy should go on and they have been demanding this for years. They have put forward a short-term 20-point plan for an energy policy. No notice was taken, because of this pathetic apotheosis of growth, and this pathetic belief that we were going to get oil flowing like milk and honey as long as we lived. As A. J. P. Taylor said in the Sunday Express last Sunday, probably this is good for the world. It may be the end of the oil age.
Our transition problem, whatever we do about atomic energy, is what are we going to fill in with for the next twenty years. It will take twenty years before a reactor gets going. I have warned the House and other people, and I have spent many years trying to understand this problem of radioactive waste and effluent. One reactor produces in a year a 12 foot by 5-foot drum of radioactive waste that has to be covered in lead or concrete and sunk in the sea somewhere. On television the other night, somebody said: "Ah, that is a problem for the future; it is not ours"—silly little man! The radioactive waste affects the genetic future of mankind. It is interesting that to-day, while we are talking about this, Newport, Mon-mouthshire, has had an escape of radioactivity from an X-ray machine; the centre of Newport had to be isolated, and they talk of shielding it with a lead covering. There one sees the infancy of some of this debating, if one does not also take into account the vital biological and ethnological snags in the use of this most difficult technological weapon that we have; namely, radioactivity and the energy from the atom. It may be that next century we shall master this problem.
But our problem is in the next twenty years, and I am worried that we are not putting enough emphasis on our natural resources of, for instance, power, coal and hydro-electricity. I really believe that solar energy could make quite a contribution. I can go back to my days in South Wales, when, even as schoolboys, we were talking about the possibilities of

715
harnessing the tides. My noble friend Lord Energlyn dealt in passing with this problem of harnessing the tides in the Bristol Channel. We talked in 1932 and 1935, and way back, I can remember, in World War I, of the possibility of generating electricity from the Severn. I contend that it is absolute idiocy to talk of digging a hole from Dover to Calais to run a train through for which we do not have the energy at the present moment. Why not divert that to the Severn Bore and changing the Severn tides into electricity? In ten years we would have that supply of electricity.
I will not quote from The Times in detail, because this House is well informed, but your Lordships may have read the other day, and seen the letter by a number of firms, talking of the potential tidal power of the Severn Estuary. Our knowledge of engineering now, as compared with 1945, say these senior partners of Sir Frederick Snow and Partners, is such that the Severn Estuary could give a constant annual output of more than forty times the energy that we envisaged in 1945. Therefore, it is an immediate possibility and I would divert Government capital now to the conversion of this power. There are other parts of Britain where hydroelectric power could usefully be used, including Scotland. My noble friend Lord Blyton, in his excellent speech, talked about building no more turbines depending on oil, but rather depending on our native fuel, coal.
There is something strange happening to mankind. The trouble is that people do not seem to know why they are alive; they move around miserable, grizzling; petty little Hitlers now at petrol pumps say, "Take the cap off yourself or you will not get petrol". That is an actual incident. In the name of God, what is happening to the British people! These are not things that have made Britain's greatness. We are losing our charisma and we are losing it because of the ugly face of capitalism. I do not know what cosmetics we are going to stick on that face to change it. It is an unpleasant face, and it is infectious. I would say that in this energy crisis of the world we should hold up on growth. It is happiness people want; it is learning to live together. I hope to God we will now stop building mighty motorways
716
that destroy the possibility of agricultural production worth millions of pounds over a period of time. To go on worshipping growth when you have not the energy to maintain growth is to me fundamentally paradoxical.
The other lesson to learn is in strategy and in military affairs. If you are in such a mess as this with your energy problem, what does NATO mean; what does protection mean? The best thing we can do is look to our own moat and develop the indigenous fuels that we have. Technological society is a weak society. Technological society is fragile and vulnerable, and it is at the mercy of aggressive individuals.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Wigg, in his excellent analysis of the problem, who had the courage to make a brave speech loaded with truth. In his speech he referred to the kind of aggressiveness that is growing in society. An underground newspaper was circulated in London not so long ago telling people how to make an atom bomb. People laughed at me twenty years ago when I said that the day will come when an atom bomb can be made out of a milk tin. But this underground newspaper that was circulated said that the best place at which to explode it would be at Charing Cross, and you would destroy not only the Houses of Parliament but elsewhere, much better than Guy Fawkes. There is something evil in this. This is because people have lost their faith: they do not believe in politicians, nor in the future destiny of this nation. Now we can remedy this situation by pulling together.
I have cut out about 80 per cent. of my speech, and this is my final contribution. I believe that the Severn Bore, and the Severn hydro-electric scheme, could light up possibly half of Britain. By using that money and Government know-how to harness those tides we could get that energy with much more speed than ever we shall get the silly old hole driven under the sea from here to France. I believe more than ever that we should open up the railways as quickly as possible in the old mining areas, because those narrow valleys cannot stand lorries running, up and down with coal as fluently and as fast as the trains used to run down to Cardiff in the old days, or to the ports in the North East of England.

717
If we do these things, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, we shall be following a policy of energy husbandry. At this moment that is vital. As I said when I opened my short speech—and I have spoken for only about 12 minutes—most things in what I call this teach-in, because that is what it has been, have been said from both sides of the House. I will not take all the controversial parts, but one point should be emphasised. It was illustrated dynamically by my noble friend Lord Wigg. Not only does this difficulty apply to oil, but if we opened our eyes we should see that it applies to fertilisers, phosphates and other precious raw materials. In many of the underprivileged parts of the world there will be a famine and a shortage of these supplies. Consequently, without too much political claptrap, we need energy and commodity conservation husbandry to face the future, and the sooner we get it the better for Britain.
8.44 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I always believe in being brief, and after so many major and weighty speeches I shall be even more brief than the noble Lord who has just spoken, who, I must say, has for him been very brief to-night. He has raised a great many interesting points. So many of the things that one would have said have already been said this evening, but I should like to speak to the immediate future. One of the problems which I foresee if we have rationing is that the oil companies will wish to deliver, or retain the right to deliver, to retailers of their choice. This action could cut out a great many private small retailers. It would put them out of business and would also inconvenience the public, because in the future there will be fewer outlets and less service all round. I hope that the Government will resist any demands by the oil companies that they should retain this right. I feel that the basis should be that of a cut-down to a percentage of the supplies that they took in the past, so that everybody gets a share of what they received in the past.
My next point is that in any crisis there are always villains of the piece. I am not discussing the major issues covered earlier, but coming down to those people who are not looking after the interests of the
718
country or of the public. Many filling stations have signs saying, "Closed, no petrol", but I happen to know that, along with some other interests, quite a number of these sites have considerable stocks of petrol. There is a considerable amount of fuel which could be used, and perhaps is being held back for a possible price increase. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Government to take action to get these stocks released now, but I hope that thought will be concentrated on ways and means of doing so.
I come on to the subject of the waste of energy. As has already been said tonight, a large proportion of domestic heating is wasted. By simple lagging or double glazing, heat losses can be considerably reduced. However, the real losses are in industry, and one of the biggest losses—although I may be corrected, and at the moment it may be uneconomic to correct this—is from those monuments to waste, the cooling towers. These are absent from round this area because the heat is used for district heating, which is one of the few places where it is used. Obviously it costs money, but the price of fuel is rising very considerably, so let us try and spend money now on encouraging district heating.
While still being very brief—I shall be the briefest speaker to-night—another point I wanted to raise concerns the encouragement of savings. Industry should be encouraged to save. If this money is found immediately in terms of grants or allowances, or in some other way, then in the very near future we could see considerable savings. For instance, a brewery in the North East has saved 10 per cent. of its fuel by putting in a computer programme to plan the deliveries of beer to their pubs. There, there was a 10 per cent. saving. Probably it could be more. In some other industries it could be even greater. It costs money to install such a programme, but it is a worth while saving. I hope that the Government can find ways of encouraging industry to spend money on this type of planning which would make for very considerable savings in the future.
Before we get to these exciting thoughts of an Energy Commission, which is very long term—when I say "very lone term ", I mean that it takes

719
time to set up a Commission and time for that Commission to become effective—we could make savings in the near future, and I think that they would be worthwhile. All that is required is a certain amount of encouragement from the Government in terms of grants.
8.49 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I have no wish and no qualification to add to the very large number of admirable speeches to which we have listened on this highly technical matter. I have learned a lot from listening to them, and I hope and believe that other noble Lords have too. What I would ask your Lordships to do, at the same time as considering the technical aspects of these problems, is to turn your attention to some of the political lessons that we should draw from the present energy crisis.
There are many that we can draw, but I would put to your Lordships only two of them—the two that I think are the most important. The first is this. It has been manifest to experts, and to a certain number of non-experts, for very many years now that, whether or not there was going to be a crisis in the Middle East which would cut off our oil, there would undoubtedly be a slowing down of the amount of oil which we were going to get from our traditional suppliers. It has been manifest that, sooner or later—and it is amazing that it has been later rather than sooner—they would wake up to the fact that they were selling, in depreciating currency, a diminishing, wasting asset. and that sooner or later (and, as I say, I am surprised that it has been later) they would decide to restrict the amount that they would send us and increase their prices. That they have done, quite regardless of any Middle Eastern war or dispute of any kind.
That is something which has been known to those who study these matters for a very long time, but there has been a grave political failing—and the failing has been just as much on this side of the House as it has on the other. Our politicians, who are people upon whom we should be able to look as statesmen, have not recognised this. They have been so intent on dealing with day-to-day problems that they have been unable to raise their eyes and look ahead for five or ten years to plan the overall policy
720
of this country, whether it be for energy or whether it be for anything else. I suggest to your Lordships most forcibly that this crisis will not have been in vain if we now realise, very late in the day, that for the welfare of this country we must have at least two and preferably three senior Ministers in every Government, in each Cabinet that comes along, whose job it is, not to deal with the day-to-day problems—how to get out of the shipwreck which is impending today—but how so to plot our course that we do not run on to the rocks in ten years' time. After all, if I may use the analogy of a petrol tanker, the quarter-of-a-million-ton tanker to-day needs something like 20 miles or so in order to alter course. It is no good the captain of that tanker spending his time seeing what is under the bows of the ship: he must be looking ahead and plotting his course so that he does not run on to the rocks. We have failed to plot that course sufficiently, and so we have our captains and our senior officers running round to see how the leaks can be plugged, whether the lifeboats are in order and all the rest of it, and they are still failing to look ahead and plot a safe course for the future.
I am not blaming the Secretary of State personally at all, but it is disastrous that the Secretary of State responsible for this matter, Mr. Peter Walker, should now have to busy himself with whether power stations get a few extra hundred thousand gallons of oil or not. That is a job which can be left to the lower levels of government. He must be thinking of the wider, longer term, and he has not time to do it. So my first plea is that the lesson we should learn from this is that we must not only have a "Think tank"—that is a good idea—but that there should be senior politicians who are going to make use of that "Think tank", who will give it problems, asking what is going to happen in the various aspects of our central national life in the next decades, and then make the political decisions which will minimise any ill effects which might arise from those things and maximise the benefits we can get from them. That is the first lesson.
The second lesson is a more specific Party political one, if you like. I do not intend it to be so, but one cannot avoid it. Our energy crisis at the present time

721
is, as we all know, exacerbated by the fact that we are not getting as much coal from our own resources as we expected to and as we had every reason to think we should be getting. I will not go into the reasons for that—it has been dealt with far better than I could possibly deal with it—but I would suggest this to your Lordships. We have now, at last, moved away, albeit unwillingly on the part of certain political sections of our community, from the belief that prices (and that includes the prices for labour as well as the prices for goods) should be determined by the free play of the markets, by the market mechanism. We have said that it is the job of the Government—and as a Socialist I praise a Conservative Government for doing this —to hold the ring and to see that no section of the community is able to grow fat upon the needs, the shortages and the urgencies of the rest of the community. We have made that decision and it is good. But from the practical, political point of view it is very difficult to make such a decision easily, quietly and happily. It is a very big change and it requires an enormous amount of political skill and real statesmanship in order to bring it about in a manner which is going to be effective.
Again without taking sides in this matter at all, how can one expect any group—at the present time the miners, and shortly the railwaymen—to forgo at this time their enormous economic advantage, the use of which over the generations they have been taught by the Conservative capitalist philosophy is the right way to get on in the world, and on grounds of patriotism say, "We will not press our advantage"? How can you expect them to do that at a time when not only do they see millions being made by property developers, commodity speculators and a whole lot of other people but also the money being made by people at much lower levels—by the bricklayers' labourers being paid their £80 to £100 a week; the temporary typists, young girls fresh out of college, being paid their £40 a week? How can you expect the skilled, trained locomotive driver to say, "In the interests of the country I will get less, happily, than the typist"? How can you expect the underground coal-face miner, with all his hardships and dangers, and with
722
all his skills, to say, "I am going to take home part of the wage I should get if I was a bricklayer's labourer"?
That is the problem facing the Government to-day. It is the problem of trying to convince the most essential sections of the community, whether they be coal miners, engine drivers, doctors or teachers—the whole range of them—that we have now moved into a policy where market forces are pushed into the background and value to the community, skill, danger, unpleasantness and all sorts of other things are going to be the deciding factors in a wages policy. That, I believe, is the second lesson which we can learn from this crisis to-day. And if we learn that lesson, if we profit from it, and if the wise men among our politicians, among the whole range of society, can devote their minds to how we can avoid this sort of thing happening in future, the unpleasantness, the discomfort, the near-disaster that is facing us now, may not have been in vain.
8.58 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I agree with almost every word that the noble Lord has said in his direct and short speech. It must be maddening for a miner or any other worker who has skill and who faces danger to see men making money as easily as some people do; but what the noble Lord is really doing is making the case for Phase 3—and I am glad to have his agreement on that. There was a question to-night about the patriotism of the miners. I hope this is not being called into question by anybody. The miners, in my view, have never lacked patriotism, either in their jobs or in war, and we owe them a great debt. There is probably only one worse job than that of the coal miner at the face, and that is the job of the deck-hand on a distance-fishing trawler. I did a trip once myself, and I can only think that that is the worst job. He does not get into his own bed at night, and he is away 21 days, probably longer. It is a ghastly job, and those men and the miners deserve very high, exceptional wages.
I will not go into detail, as I have no ambition to "stir it up", but I hope that the miners, who, as I have said, are a very fine body of men, will see their way clear, through their advisers, to accept the terms which are being offered,

723
on the strict proviso that after the given period of six months they are at the top of the list when we are through this immediate emergency. Could not more be done about the pensions for these men? I do not know what their pensions are now, but when I was the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield a number of miners from the Potteries area lived in my constituency and I know that the amount of their pensions was appalling; they received pittances. The amounts are probably more now, but railwaymen and miners get poor pensions and something should be done about that.
My Lords, we have had a wide debate, and if the Government were to put a fine comb through most of the speeches they would find some good ideas on which to work. I was impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Energlen, whom I had not heard speak before. I thought it was a magnificent speech and I congratulate the noble Lord. I should like to make one suggestion; could not more be done in the way of freight-carrying by the railways? That is a point which has not been emphasised in this debate. We have immense juggernaut lorries on our roads, but our rail services are to be improved and they are pretty good now. I think we should be proud of our railway system and of the rate at which it is improving and I should like to see something done to get more freight carried by the railways.
I would willingly see the Maplin project disappear and be replaced by the provision of hydro-electric stations. We cannot do everything in this country. We have the technological skill, but our resources are limited. As the noble Lord, Lord Energlen, said, the French have brought about a great achievement on the River Rance and the same could be done in the Bristol Channel. I was impressed by a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who talked about the price of oil as a commodity, and he referred to other commodities. I think we have to look ahead because every day the price of commodities, such as lead, zinc and tin, is going up. The peoples of the Free World have got to get their heads together to see where they stand over this matter. I am not referring to bartering or holding off supplies; I mean that we must bring some sense into the world, otherwise there will
724
be real shortages. In the weeks since the Middle East war started I have been disappointed at the lack of leadership from the Economic Community. The members have not met as they should, and I think that, now we are in the Common Market for better or worse, Britain should play a greater part in these important matters in the days ahead.
I wish, my Lords, to make one or two points about the chemical industry, with which until recently I was actively engaged over a period of twenty years. A number of problems affect this industry and almost every other industry in the country, and I am not satisfied that the matter has been properly understood or dealt with by the Government. Not only does this industry need oil as a fuel but also it needs oil as a feedstock, as the starting material from which a wide range of products are made for a number of other industries. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said he had been assured that the industry could absorb a reduction of the magnitude proposed in supplies of oil, without severe disruption, but that more than 10 per cent. would bring problems. In a subsequent announcement from the Department of Trade and Industry it was stated that the production of chemical substances derived from petroleum feedstocks was included as a "priority use", but it remained unclear what was the practical effect of this priority classification.
Chemical manufacture other than petrochemicals did not have a priority classification, even though petroleum-based materials might be used to supply energy to endothermic reactions, or to supply the latent heat needs of the process in melting, evaporation and so on. Subsequently naptha was stated not to be under control, but fuel to the napthausing part of the chemical industry apparently remains under control. Because of the low output of the industry in November a year ago, the arbitrary reference date chosen for the allocations meant a cut to 90 per cent. of supplies at that date. This, my Lords, would represent a cut of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the chemical industry's present needs for petroleum fuels. Since chemical products find their way into most manufacturing industries as raw materials or operating supplies, a reduction in the chemical output would have

725
a multiplying effect over the whole manufacturing sector.
Historically, the chemical industry has a favourable export trade balance, exporting about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of its output in 1972. I know that these views have been expressed to the Secretary of State but in my opinion there are two principles that should be observed. The first is that whatever priority it was decided to give in the national interest to petroleum-based supplies to the chemical industry, the same degree of priority should be applied to such materials, both as fuels and as feedstocks, and it should apply to the total chemical industry and not simply to that part which uses petroleum-based feedstocks as raw material. Secondly, if it was necessary to make cuts in the feed material, this should be done in such a way that the chemical industry would not be put in the position of being a bottleneck in production for the many industries downstream which depend on the chemical industry for their supplies or raw materials.
There is one other point I wish to make, my Lords. I am told that P.V.C., which usually sells at about £150 a ton, has been exported at £400 a ton. It is a worthy achievement that exports of that magnitude are being obtained, but our manufacturing industry is having to import the same material at something like £500 a ton. I hope that we shall not overdo exports of material which is needed by manufacturers in this country. I do not think that the technicalities of the chemical industry are fully understood by the Minister. It is not like engineering. It is a comparatively new industry and I hope that these points will be examined.
Many noble Lords have said to-day that we are going through a crisis, and undoubtedly we are. But it is a challenge. I believe that if the Government will put responsible Ministers who are effective on television—not many of them are—to explain exactly what is the position almost from day to day, and if they explain in a language which the average individual can understand, I think that they will get a response from the public. The British people will never fail you if they are given the facts and if they do not have the wool pulled over
726
their eyes. I beg of the Government to do this, and I am sure that they will get a response, and much good may come out of this crisis in the long run.
9.8 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, more. I only doubt whether the Government would want, 18 months before the Election, to put the whole situation frankly before the British people. I doubt it very much, and we shall see which of us is right. May I for once congratulate my Front Bench in their astuteness in picking this theme of debate on this Wednesday. We have had three previous debates on this subject, so they must have learned quite a lot about it. Nevertheless, they were so astute as to know that we shall be sitting until nine o'clock in the evening, Lord after Lord spouting the most admirable sentiments.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, praise from the noble Lord is praise indeed.
LORD BALOGH: I hope also, you see, that in future statements from the Front Bench will be more in tune with that of the Party. The problem is really one of short-term and long-term. In the short-term, of course, we can do very little. We have, on the whole, relied on things going very much as they were going. We have relied very much on getting the raw materials 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 per cent. higher than the year before, and we are now jolted out of this position. In a way I think we ought to be very grateful to the Arab Sheikhs, and various other potentates, for having jolted us out because it could have been done at a very much worse time for this country, though bad the position is. I think that here I have to join with the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, in hoping that the Government will take very good care so to ration feed stock, petroleum and raw materials as not to cause unemployment. This, in the short term, is the optimum way of dealing with the matter. It seems to me that it is unfortunate that the consumer interest is now intruding, as it has to intrude in a democratic country, 18 months before the Election, and I hope that the Government will as much as possible disregard the consumer and put the emphasis of

727
their policy upon the producer. In that case, I think we shall be able to weather the crisis without very much unemployment, and without a real setback in our production process, apart from the possibility that we might have a crisis of a financial character of which we cannot talk to-day.
In the longer run, I think what is absolutely essential is to get our raw material supply much more firmly under control than we have had it in the last decade or so. It seems to me that we have been far too ready to accept calculations of an economic character—my colleagues and myself are very much to blame for this—in deciding the policy of the country. It seems to me that it is very much more important than we had realised, in the new conditions where the small countries seem to have a power of compelling large countries, relying on the dutifulness and reasonableness and fairness of these countries.
It seems to me that we shall have to have a substitution of coal for oil, and probably hydrogen. I think we shall have to do our utmost to get the last penny out of the North Sea in order to be able to carry this through. I beg the Government to think again. They have begun to think again, but I think they will have to look very much more into the sort of problems which I have, through the luck of the draw, been able to draw to your Lordships' attention.
It is in this context that I want to refer, for just a minute, to the mining problem. There is no question that mining is a dangerous and exceptional industry. I think, on the whole, one ought to be able to work out some sort of satisfactory settlement with the miners. It is a regrettable fact that the present Phase 3 legislation, from this point of view, is very much more crude and primitive and unsatisfactory than was the White Paper issued by Sir Stafford Cripps when he imposed a freeze on wages, because one of the special exceptions in that Paper was that there was a shortage of manpower in an essential industry. This exception has not been mentioned in any of the recent declarations by the Government. I entreat the Government to look very closely at this point again. On the other hand, of course, there is no doubt that any exception would shake the incomes
728
policy and, therefore, could be negotiated only if the general run of trade unions would accept the special case as a special case. Here I should like to entreat the trade unions, with whom I feel great solidarity, to be reasonable, so as not to give any possible interpretation of their attitude as one which is contrary to national interests. My Lords, we have had a very long debate. I had a bet with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that I would sit down earlier than he did, and I do that very thing.
9.16 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, we can be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing forward this debate at this particular time. His Motion, couched as it is in terms that do not intend to confine discussion either to domestic or international considerations, but which permit of both, and the crisis being such as to justify either, I shall take the option of speaking almost exclusively about certain international and political consideration.
The events which have succeeded each other with such bewildering rapidity over the last two months mark a milestone in our lifetime. Fundamental changes in the distribution of wealth and power, not simply locally, but internationally, have been demonstrated and accentuated. Big question marks hang equally over the future of those countries from whom this wealth and power has been taken, those to whom it has gone, and others—for example, the developing countries—who are not directly involved. Within our own democratic capitalistic system we have been made starkly aware of our weakness; namely, that we depend for our raw materials on sources which we can no longer control, but which others can now in combination control, as a result both of their own political development and of rising world consumption. For the first time we have had to face the possibility of forgoing improvements in our own economic wealth, with uncertainty over when this trend to which we have been used, and which is built into so many of our social policies, can be resumed.
Like other noble Lords, I am sure that some of the consequences will be beneficial. Internationally, aside from the profound changes that have occurred

729
and the eventually new patterns of co-operation between countries of greatly different experience that will need to follow, this crisis should have, and I believe in the end will have, a powerful positive effect on the integration of Europe. I have reservations about a single aspect of our short-term policy in this respect which I shall enter into more fully in a moment. But the need and urgency for Europe to integrate its policies, its resources and its decision-taking procedures could not have been more strongly demonstrated.
Secondly, our societies have not hitherto tackled as seriously as they might, and as they will have to, the problem of the scarcity of resources, including the waste of resources, within the competitive capitalistic system. I do not think it will be seriously disputed that a political organisation that has enabled the major sources of oil to be controlled at the present time, and enabled demands to be made of us in return for its continued supply, has acted simply from an economic point of view as a foretaste of what our experience would in any case have become in a world in which consumption continually rises, but resources are finite. By bringing this matter from the domain of the prophet into the painful arena of public experience, the chances have at once been improved both for the better internal adaptation of these societies to the possibilities and the expectation of scarcity, and for the international collaboration of all fronts without which such adaptation cannot proceed very far, or achieve very much.
I must confess that I am disturbed by one aspect of the current crisis, and that is the matter of the continued embargo on Holland and the fact that other member-States of the Community, in particular Britain and France, have not pledged to assist her with oil supplies. Many people have taken this up in the recent period as a question of principle, and I should like to look at it a little more closely. Perhaps I should say that I have myself long-standing connections with Holland, and my family at home is there—but this is not why I am intervening. The observations and arguments I shall use derive from considerations of the interest of the Community as a whole, including this country, and they would
730
apply whichever member-State found herself now in the position of Holland. It seems to me inconceivable that the member-States of the Community could, beyond a certain point, allow another of their members to suffer serious hardship—and I am thinking in terms of loss of production and employment—from which they did not suffer or from which they suffered much less acutely, and which they could alleviate by a change of policy, albeit undertaken at a certain risk. In such circumstances, how would it be possible for us, for example, to ask for support and, still less, to expect the support of such a member-State or of other member-States for measures of a longer-term character which we wanted the Community to adopt? Indeed, to permit such a situation to arise would be incompatible with the maintenance of the policy of establishing a European Union, and since I have no doubt that this Government are sincerely committed to such a policy we must conclude that in the end we and other member-States of the Community will in fact give Holland assistance if this present oil embargo is maintained.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten me on one point? Holland, we know, is in trouble with the Arabs because they made a pro-Israeli statement at the beginning of the War. Does the noble Lord know whether the Dutch Government cleared that statement through the political co-operation machinery of the European Community? I asked this question of our own Government the other day, but they did not answer it, and I can understand the reasons for their reticence.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer that question, but I was going to come on to deal with the general point the noble Lord has raised in a moment or two. The question therefore arises: should this be made clear sooner rather than later? At the present time, it seems to me quite plain that the Dutch Government and people do not feel they have had the assurance they need that the rest of Europe will not allow their country to suffer worse than themselves. It is not a convincing argument to say that now there is no evidence that she is suffering worse because the Dutch (and everyone

731
else) know that she is facing a particular danger. If Holland began to suffer more severely than the rest of us, or even if she feared she was about to—and we are in a siutation in which events within as well as outside Europe can move quickly, and populations can suddenly become afraid for their future and angry even with their friends—if she then started to retaliate, or even seriously threatened to do so, if she used her veto in the Council, if she threatened not to supply the natural gas she is contracted to supply to other member-States, then we should have lost considerable advantage in having to give the assurances or the assistance in those circumstances rather than in these. Therefore the deterioration in the political climate of Europe, and the damage to Europe's reputation which could by then have occurred, would be unpleasant to experience and would take time to rectify. It is worth remembering that the risk then of provoking the Arab countries could be the same as it is now.
The problem of assuring assistance is not primarily one, other things being equal, of accepting additional sacrifices ourselves. Given the very much larger consumption of oil in this country, a relatively small percentage of our consumption is equivalent to a relatively large percentage for Holland. In addition, of course, the burden could be spread between member-States. The risk of acting is the provocation of a similar embargo for the rest of Europe, despite the fact that the Arab countries insist that they do not wish to cause serious damage to Europe, and despite the fact that it is almost certainly not in their interests to do so.
The demand of the Arab countries is in fact unrealistic; they are ignoring a political fact. The Community exists and we cannot agree to ignore it. It would be much as if we announced that we intended to bring the State of Wyoming to its knees and forbade the other States of the Union to interfere. It is not a sustainable policy. There are some demands which simply, because of their character, cannot be met. There have been changes in Europe as well as in the Middle East and both groups of countries need to be party to the processes of re-education.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the State of Wyoming is unlikely to make a statement of its own about the Middle East war?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not express the views of this side of the House.
LORD REAY: I will nevertheless attempt to give him an answer. Certainly I do not think that the solidarity shown by member States towards the Dutch in this situation would imply any support for their previous national policies. The embargo that was applied specifically to Holland arose out of a situation where member States still had their own independent national policies. Since the adoption of the common E.E.C. statement on this question, to which the Dutch subscribe, this situation no longer exists.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise the tremendous political risks that are involved in the policy he advocates? Does he not realise that the Economic Union—that is to say, the Common Market—is not exactly popular in this country, and I would go so far as to say it loses its popularity every day? A great deal of the mess this country is in is because, without the consent of the British people, they have been frog-marched into a political undertaking of which they do not approve. If they were now asked to pay the economic price on behalf of Holland, might there not be a threat which would shake us to our very roots?
LORD REAY: The noble Lord is taking the question rather wide. I agree that certainly there are risks in the action I am recommending, and indeed it is the existence of these risks which has presumably resulted in no action beng taken. I think there are quite serious risks in our not taking action of this sort. I believe it is a situation in which we need the courage to act, and that means to make it plain—and I mean publicly plain—that we cannot refuse to supply a member State of the Community; and I do not believe that we should postpone any longer an acknowledgement of our obligation to a member State.
My Lords, I have dealt with this problem at some length because it is a problem of a unique character since we joined the Community. All other matters

733
involving differences in national interests have been able to be discussed, and then to be discussed again in a stable background where the deadlines have been set by agreement. In this case the volatility and potential severity of the economic movement and of the emotions in the situation make it unsafe, I believe, for us to rely on the private processes of diplomacy; nor is it enough to leave the matter of redistribution to the covert activity of the oil companies. I believe it is a question of principle and that we need to assert the indivisibility of Europe.
9.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this has been a really remarkable debate. It has been an important one and an authoritative one, and I feel it is one which will be read carefully not only in Government circles but in other places as well. The outstanding feature of this debate is that the situation has been treated not so much as a crisis, rather as a challenge. I am sure that this is right. Crisis has more than one meaning and, among other things, it means a time for determining things. We are at the moment at a point in our history when we have to take a careful look at our future and revise our direction in view of the entirely new situation with which we have been faced in recent months. I should not like to pick out any particular speech, but one of the features of the early speeches was that they almost all dealt with one of the means which we might choose to guide and study our policy for the future. There are a number of noble Lords who have spoken about this: the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in a very well-informed speech; the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Gore-Booth; and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, who I see is still with us. It is really to study ways of conserving existing energy resources and new ways of meeting our energy needs. I noted particularly that there is now no question, as there was before, of an Energy Commission which would have executive powers. It is generally recognised that this would be very difficult, because it would interpose another body between the Government and the energy industries and so would inevitably complicate the lines of responsibility.
LORD BALOGH: Hear, hear!
LORD DRUMALBYN: What we have to do, among other things, is to deal with the approval of investment plans of nationalised industries, and it is very difficult to divorce this from Government responsibility and decision. Yet the fact remains that decisions in this field are of crucial importance for energy policy, and if we were serious about making an Energy Commission a truly executive body, we would face great difficulties in decision making. There is general agreement about this now and, to that extent, we have made a step forward, which I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, welcomes.
The suggestion that we have been considering to-day is an advisory body—call it what you will, an agency, a transition commission—which would not actually take decisions but which would bring together expertise, perhaps carry out research and certainly advise the Government on energy policy generally. There is a strong argument against this, in that it would in each and every respect duplicate facilities which are already available to the Government. There is a lot of expertise in Departments now. If we want advice from outside it is always open to us to ask for it. Where we need it we already ask for it, as, for example, the creation and appointment of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board indicates. As regards research, a great deal goes on in nationalised industries and in the private sector now. If the Government want to back research they can and do so now. On the face of it, we still feel there is no need for the creation of yet another body to do what is already being done.
One of the crucial points is that any body of this sort which was going to advise would have to take the very widest considerations into account and would have to have the widest possible access to information of all kinds, much of it treated as within Government. I note the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, when he said that you cannot deal with energy in isolation He had in mind, I think, the wider political considerations.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale said that the prototype for the advisory board lay in Queen Mary College. But they have already taken these steps; their assistance is available to us. I quite

735
understand the value of the mathematical models, and the rest. So I cannot hold out hope at the present time of a decision to set up such a Commission, but of course it is always foolish to close any doors, and this is the sort of matter that we shall continue to look at.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask one question on this subject? Will he deal with the point that there would perhaps be an advantage in having the top people in the different energy industries confronting each other in such a Commission?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is very useful and it is the sort of thing that we have already in the nuclear power field, but it has been argued on the other side by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for example, that we should not have the heads of the nationalised industries and other bodies but that they should all be entirely independent people, independent both of the nationalised industries and of the Government.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is very courteous of the noble Lord to sit down for me, and I should like to say, in an entirely constructive spirit, that I am much encouraged by the noble Lord's not having shut the door on this suggestion. But surely the point is that we do not have all the heads of the different energy-producing sectors meeting together, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has just said; we have the nuclear board dealing with the nuclear energy and we have corresponding boards for other sectors of the industry, but we do not have them all together. I should not be at all averse to having a committee of the executive heads of the different energy sectors meeting from time to time so long as there is a strong, independent research secretariat probing into all their sectoral prejudices and darknesses, so as to get comparable costings throughout the whole field.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand the point, but I have been saying that this exists in Government already. The Government are in a position to service any sort of body and it does not need to be created separately outside. This is our view at the present time.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, but quite rightly the Civil Service does not publish. What I want to see is a body that will freely publish a spectrum of different interpretations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thoroughly understand the noble Lord's point of view, but even if we were to set up this body it might not necessarily published, just as there has been criticism of the Nuclear Power Advisory Committee and the way in which it proceeds, when it really does advise the Government confidentially. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not like it, but this is still one thing that could be done. Does the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, wish to ask me something?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is essential in the present crisis that all the heads of nationalised industries dealing with fuel and energy should get together and thresh out the position we are going to be in, and ensure that we co-ordinate our fuel and energy policies?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is of course constant contact all the time with the heads of nationalised industries, but whether they should sit down round the table regularly is another matter. I am afraid I cannot say at the present time whether they do or not. But that there is constant contact is the important point.
Reference has been made on several sides, including by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, to priorities for essential industries. I can assure noble Lords that one of the aims of our contingency plans for rationing would be to ensure that vital industries and services continue to receive adequate supplies. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing also referred to cuts to garages, which he said were 60 per cent. and not just 10 per cent., but I can assure noble Lords that deliveries overall are being maintained at a rate of 10 per cent. below those of last year.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, there is some funny business going on!
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there have been several problems, particularly in the South East. The Oil Industry Emergency Committee is operating a

737
mutual aid scheme to balance demands against available supplies, and this will deal fairly with those, including garages, who allege hardship in the allocation of supplies. There is certainly no evidence of garages withholding petrol against a possible price increase, but if any noble Lord has any particular information about that, then I will most certainly see that it is passed on to the Committee.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer the point made by his noble friend Lord Redesdale on the question of the level at which the petrol companies are inflicting their 10 per cent. cuts?—because there is no doubt whatever there is evidence of great disquiet on this point. It seems to me it could be met quite simply if the Minister would undertake that an appeal machinery was set up so that where a garage thinks it is unfairly dealt with it appeals, not to the petrol company which does the supplying, but to his Department.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is no reason at all why garages, or individuals if it comes to that, who feel that they are not getting their rights should not approach the Regional Offices of the Department of Trade and Industry.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am much obliged. If I come with half a dozen cases tomorrow, will the noble Lord undertake to look at them?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will certainly look at them as a matter of interest. But I shall do more: I shall pass them on to people who actually carry the matter out.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke about telling the people. I wonder whether I might spend a minute or two in giving the House some information on the general situation. The restrictions that we have placed on oil supplies are related more to the need to conserve stocks than to the immediate present stock situation taken by itself. It would not be right of course at any time to divulge our stocks, and I hope that your Lordships will be content to leave it to the Government to disclose stocks at such times and in such manner as the Government themselves judge it appropriate to do.
738
How much oil do we expect to get this month and in the coming months? This is obviously a question which has exercised the minds of many noble Lords. Noble Lords will appreciate that the decision of the Gulf oil producing countries, with the exception of Iraq, to cut the level of production in November by 25 per cent. is likely to have worldwide repercussions. It is bound to affect not only the volume but the pattern of world oil shipments. It is gratifying to have the assurance of the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister that oil supplies to the United Kingdom will be maintained at the average for the first nine months of 1973, or at the September level, whichever is the higher, and that Britain, France and Spain would be exempted from the further 5 per cent. cut in December which the Arab countries intend to make this month. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, will rest on this assurance, because we all—
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? In to-day's Press, Sheikh Yamani has said that that decision is dependent upon acceptance of their foreign policy.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what they have done is to declare their intention to make further cuts of 5 per cent. each month after that until the Israelis withdraw from the Arab territories, and it is not clear how these will affect us, directly or indirectly. But we also have to take into account that normally our imports of oil would be higher at this time of year and that the consumption of oil has been rising. Many industrialists have pointed out that a cut of 10 per cent. based on their consumption this time last year is, in effect, a cut of much more than 10 per cent. of what deliveries would have been but for the present situation, because their needs have increased in the mean-time.
The chemical industry is a case in point. We cannot tell how soon the difficulties in the Middle East will be brought to an end. That being so, it would be imprudent to count on our having adequate oil supplies in the New Year. Our prospects of having them are adversely affected by the severe reduction in coal production, which was running at 30 per cent. below its previous

739
level last week. This may worsen if maintenance difficulties accumulate. One of the steps which the Government took was to ask the Central Electricity Generating Board to reduce their oil consumption; they did so by 30 per cent., by switching to coal. It is clear they must conserve their coal stocks and, instead of 30 per cent. of oil consumed, there will be only a 13 per cent. reduction. Noble Lords may feel it is unfortunate that after all the pressure brought to bear for coal burning to be increased in electricity generation, and after the steps which the Government took in the Coal Industry Act to make possible more coal burning, we are not able to carry out these plans at the very moment when we need most to do so, as we could have done if the normal working arrangements which have applied for so long were being applied now.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is it not true that everyone except the Government has always known there was going to be an oil shortage this year, quite apart from the present incidents in the Middle East?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think that is the case. Of course the position has been very closely watched indeed. What I am saying at the moment is that it cannot be denied that our inability to get the coal we are accustomed to getting is making the situation rather worse. As I pointed out last Monday, if we had been able to count on normal supplies of coal throughout the winter, there would have been a saving of 4¼ million tons of oil, a very useful contribution in the present energy crisis. These are facts one cannot avoid.
The decision of the Arab oil-producing States to limit their production appears to stem from considerations other than the Middle East conflict alone. Their exports of oil bring them in more money than they can use. In consequence, they are building up very considerable financial surpluses. Unless these can be used in ways regarded as satisfactory to those countries, they will have little incentive to increase production to meet the growing needs of the West after the present crisis. It follows that the Governments of the oil-producing and the oil-consuming countries will need to co-operate to ensure that the surpluses are not only used for
740
the development of the producing countries, but for safe and profitable investment elsewhere as well. But the first consideration will be the development of the producing countries themselves. This is an important matter because it is a matter of statesmanship and co-operation. This is one of the things we look forward to in the future.
I would like now to say a word or two about the development of existing resources. I do not think I need say much about the development of North Sea oil because we have covered this so fully in the past, and not a great deal really has been said about it in the debate. However, I have been asked about nuclear power. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot possibly anticipate the decisions that have to be taken in the next few months. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, to what he called the appalling problem of nuclear fission. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, also said a good deal about this. On the other hand, I think it is right to recall the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that no subject had been treated with greater responsibility by scientists. As for the safety of the various reactor systems being examined at present, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate are keeping in close contact with the work on the safety of these reactors which is being carried out not only in the United States of America but in other major countries, such as Germany, which have adopted the system of the light water reactor. I can assure noble Lords that unless the Secretary of State is fully satisfied about the safety aspects of a particular reactor system, then that reactor system will not be introduced here.
I take note of what has been said about carrying on with what is called the Magnox system. Everything that has been said on this subject today will of course be taken into account when the Government are making up their mind. I have already mentioned the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the advice of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board being kept confidential, but my right honourable friend has made it clear that when his decision on thermal reactor choice is announced, the detailed base on which he comes to his decision will also be made available, as it was on the

741
previous occasion. It seems to me that this fully meets the noble Lord's point.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the application of the customer/contractor arrangements to the Atomic Energy Authority are absurd. The Department of Trade and Industry's new arrangements, whereby the requirement board commissions nuclear research and development affects only non-nuclear research and development so far as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is concerned. This is only a small proportion of the Authority's total effort.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has argued that we should try to break the OPEC cartel by developing the world's resources of natural gas. I am bound to say that I did not manage to register all the statistics he gave, and he may have found that there was a nought or two misplaced in some of the things he said when he came to revise his speech. There is a drawback in his line of argument, and that is that most of the areas where there is a surplus of natural gas production over consumption are in OPEC. Substantial reserves exist in the Soviet Union, in the Middle East, North and West Africa. Indonesia and Australasia, of which only Russia and Australasia are not in OPEC. The rest of the world is expected to develop into a big importer. So it is unlikely that the dependence on OPEC will decrease very much. I noted that he referred to Nigeria and the Caribbean, and we shall certainly study what he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that fusion research should be stepped up, and I think noble Lords may like to know what the situation is here. Up to and including 1972–73, the United Kingdom spent over £50 million on fusion research. In 1972, the fusion review panel set up under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Massey recommended three things: first of all, that the Atomic Energy Authority's fusion programme should be continued at a higher level of expenditure; that it should form part of a collaborative European venture, and that a large experimental assembly should be built at Culham. In the light of these recommendations, approval was given earlier this year to the continuation of the programme during the next three years at an annual gross expenditure rising to nearly £6 million, £17 million
742
over three years. The Authority's programme at Culham is being integrated with fusion research in other European countries and a financial contribution of £1 million to £1½ million a year will be received from the European Community. A contract of association giving formal effect to this collaboration was signed between the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in October this year. An international team is currently assembling at Culham to consider the initial design of a large joint European experiment, and no decision has yet been taken on where the experiment will be built. I hope this is welcome news to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
A good deal has been said about tidal power. Possibilities do exist here: tidal barrages, such as have been suggested for the Severn Estuary. There are not many sites suitable for this kind of development in the United Kingdom, and some of them are also suitable for fresh water reservoirs, so that reduces the number still further. They could make only a very small contribution to total energy requirements, perhaps the equivalent of two or three nuclear power stations, but at very much higher cost. The Severn schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, talked about have been examined but have not been found economically attractive. I believe, incidentally —and this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth—that the French do not have any proposals for building a second example of the Rennes tidal barrage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who is so courteous. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that one should take into consideration other things apart from the economic cost. I know that we will take care with nuclear reactors, but a surgeon takes care in the operating theatre and accidents still happen. We have no pollution whatsoever with a barrage, and social benefit should be weighed against economic costs so far as barrages and the Severn bore are concerned.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would agree, but not weighed against but along with other costs. As usual, we were all fascinated by the speech of the

743
noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, and I was particularly fascinated with what he had to say about the liquefaction of coal. While, as he said, this is technologically possible, it has not yet been mounted on a scale massive enough to be tried out commercially. A great deal of work has been, and is being, done in the United States of America, but their current view is that what is called "synth crude" will not make a significant contribution to energy problems until 1985 at the earliest. The cost would be enormous, and in any case we shall need all the coal that we can produce in the foreseeable future for conventional fuel needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, asked whether illegal hours are being worked in the mines. I would be surprised if illegal hours are being worked. One of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines is the enforcement of statutory restrictions on working hours. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, made one of his usual vigorous speeches. It is not a question of miners breaking the law, but rather of not adhering to what was worked out, and what they undertook to carry out, under the industry's five-day week agreement. I could not make out from what the noble Lord said whether he thought that the miners should be treated as a special case or not. Wilberforce said that they were, and look what happened to that! Had he been here, I would certainly have asked him whether he believed that the trade unions should, or could, all agree that the miners should be treated as a special case, and that the miners should be exempted from the provisions of Stage 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, also spoke about battery car development. The obstacle to their development is not a matter of the resistance of people with vested interests in petrol engines; the simple fact is that battery cars cannot compare in performance, or range, with internal combustion engines, and the user demands both performance and range. The key to bringing in electric cars—and we must bear in mind that so long as electricity is oil-based the advantage of it is not fully achieved—is development of an improved battery. He also spoke about fuel cells, but I am told that this idea has been looked at by
744
experts and so far appears unpromising. I cannot advise noble Lords that fuel cells, of whatever kind, seem likely to make a significant contribution to fossil fuel displacement.
The Government are well aware of the importance of thermal insulation. We have been consulting interested parties, including local authorities, on the proposition that thermal insulation standards should be tightened up. The Government hope quite shortly to be introducing legislation which would enable the tightening up of standards to be taken further than under the existing Acts.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, in the meantime, could the noble Lord say whether it is possible for the Department of the Environment simply to issue a circular to local authorities saying that they will not be granted loan sanction unless they greatly improve the standards of insulation of their own dwellings, let us say by doubling the thickness of the insulation which has been adopted hitherto under the building regulations? Would not that be a simple way of improving the situation "at a stroke"?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It seems a simple way, my Lords, and I will certainly convey it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, in this connection may I ask the noble Lord—because he knows my interest—whether he will seriously consider the possibility of grants for existing houses? I think the calculation goes something like this: that one-third of our energy requirements are used in the home, and if you spend some £10 per home you can probably reduce the energy requirement by something like 3 per cent., which is really a very worthwhile saving. So may I ask the noble Lord to consider this suggestion seriously?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will certainly consider it. My noble friend Lord Redesdale asked whether the oil companies will be able to put small dealers out of business if rationining is imposed. It is our intention to make sure that if it should become necessary to impose rationing the position of independent petrol distributors and retailers will continue to be safeguarded.

745
My Lords, I have done my best to answer as many as possible of the points which have been raised in this excellent debate. It was certainly timely and appropriate for the House to discuss this Motion, and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having given us the opportunity to do so. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are now faced with an entirely new situation, both in the present and the immediate future and also in the longer term. If the oil-producing countries husband their reserves, then we shall have a more difficult time until our own North Sea oil is in full flow, but in that case the day when natural oil reserves are exhausted will be postponed. In any case, oil is going to be more expensive, and that will put up costs both to ourselves and to our overseas suppliers and customers. That, of course, will be a challenge to further development, and it is a challenge to all of us. But our own underlying position, I think I can fairly say, is better than might be thought from our present difficulties. Nevertheles, I have no doubt that we shall not only have to make the best of what we have but also have to apply all the wisdom, all the restraint and all the ingenuity and statesmanship of which we are capable if we are to preserve and enhance our heritage for the generations to come.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has called this a "Teach-in", and so it has been. It has certainly been a long "Teach-in". Excluding the Minister who has just wound up—because we always interrupt Ministers who are winding up so much that it is not fair to say that they take too long—there have been no fewer than five Back-Bench speeches lasting half an hour or more. I think this may be something which we shall want to watch in future. But I am convinced that it has been a good "Teach-in" and a constructive one. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) BILL
10.3 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to relax statutory and contractual obligations, etc.]:
LORD HOY LORD HOY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and notwithstanding any provision in any other enactment, Her Majesty may, for the purposes of section 2 of this Act, by Order in Council provide that—

(a) no person shall drive a motor vehicle on any road at a speed greater than 50 miles per hour; and

(b) the driving of any class of motor vehicle on any road shall be restricted to a speed less than 50 miles per hour:

Provided that such Order in Council shall not apply to the driving of a motor vehicle on a road on which there is for the time being a restriction imposed on the driving of that vehicle in excess of a maximum speed which is less than 50 miles per hour.")
The noble Lord said: I will not detain the Committee for very long. The Government announcement this afternoon about the 50 m.p.h limit has overtaken this Amendment which I put down some considerable time ago. The only consolation I have is to think that anything that we suggest and put into the ear of the Government on the right-hand side comes out as their considered opinion on the left-hand side about 10 days later. We are grateful to the Minister for accepting this Amendment before we had an opportunity to discuss it. As a consequence of the action he has taken, I do not move the Amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: I understand that this is the time at which it is appropriate

747
to ask a question which would arise under the regulations made under this Bill. From an announcement in the public Press it would appear that when, or if, petrol rationing comes in it would be illegal to use one's coupons if one were a passenger travelling in a car which was not one's own car and the vehicle for which the coupons originally were issued. If this is true, legal life in the rural areas will become impossible. Those of us who live part of the time in the country know that we could not get around without sharing transport on various occasions, including journeys connected with public business. I should like to know the Government's intentions in this matter. One does not wish to break the law but one wishes to be practical.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Baroness. She may know that in another place to-day the Secretary of State made the position quite plain; in fact he went so far as to say that car sharing will have to be the accepted practice for the bulk of motoring, especially for journeys to work. That being the case, no doubt the Orders, when they are made, will reflect that intention.
I think I should say also that the Secretary of State went on to say that all motor insurance policies now cover owners and drivers against liability for the death of, or bodily injury to, passengers, so that drivers need not therefore hesitate to offer lifts. I know that this is a different point but it is a way of sharing. The Minister went on to say that the Government are examining the possibility of exercising powers to allow motorists to accept contributions from regular passengers towards the cost of a lift without the need to comply with public service vehicle licensing requirements. I quite understand the point made by the noble Baroness. It is the simple point that you have two cars and you want to pool petrol for those two cars. I should like to look into that a little further to see how that could be not only practical but also legal.
LORD HOY: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I had a word with him earlier. There is a great deal of difference between sharing
748
payment and sharing petrol coupons. That is the point at issue. If you are to have a petrol supply you have to produce coupons for the car, and the car has to be registered before the coupons become legal tender. All my noble friend was asking was that when the Government come to discuss these regulations they may try to meet this situation, because cash is no compensation for petrol if petrol is getting short. Petrol would be more valuable than money. All we are trying to do is to ask the Government to consider the matter before they introduce the regulations. As I understand it, what the noble Lord has said is that they will give some thought to this question and we are prepared to let it go at that; but at the same time we say to the noble Lord that we shall have to look at the regulations closely to see whether the point has been covered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for leaving the matter in that way. The technical position at the moment is that in order to draw petrol with your coupons you must have it put into that particular car. I do not see any great difficulty about this because people could use their cars turn and turn about.
BARONESS WHITE: No, they cannot.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Plainly, the petrol rationing scheme is based on the concept that petrol must go into the car for which you hold the coupons. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that you not only pool the petrol but also that you try to get it into another car, that is another matter.
BARONESS WHITE: That is the whole point. I have just had to cancel a conference in mid-Wales because of transport difficulties, including possible trouble on the railways as well as the shortage of petrol. In order to travel from various universities and colleges in Wales to a central point, as we originally intended, it would be stupid for me, as an individual, to use a car. I should want to join with someone else for that occasion; but I have no guarantee that I should ever want to drive with that man or woman again. Therefore, I cannot do it on a sort of sharing-a-car basis. I need to be able to contribute my share of petrol in order to go in that car. I want

749
to be able to do it legally, and it would be quite stupid to do it in any other way. That is the whole point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I see the noble Baroness's point; she wants not only money to be transferred, but money's worth in the form of petrol. I shall have to take further advice on that point, I am afraid.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.