LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 11 November 1975)

§ Lord BALOGH
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30, because it is important to retain maximum flexibility in controlling the maximum rate of production of petroleum. It was explained in another place that, although in the majority of cases the cutbacks are likely not to exceed 20 per cent., as the statement on 6th December made clear, we cannot in the national interest bind ourselves to that figure in every case. The Amendment goes further than the statement of 6th December in that it would so bind us.
Moreover, we do not think it necessary to incorporate the terms of the statement about the operation of depletion policy in the Statute which confers the powers to operate such a policy. This could create an undesirable precedent. From time to time, we may issue further statements to supplement, but not to override, the statement of 6th December. It would be cumbersome both for the Executive and Parliament if on each occasion we faced demands, as we surely would, for precedents to be followed, and for each new statement to be enshrined in legislation. In view of the lateness of the hour and of these considerations, I hope your Lordships will not insist on these Amendments. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, before we agree to the Motion, may I point out that this Amendment would have carried into the Bill what was generally understood to be the effect of the statement of the Secretary of State of 6th December in a long Written Answer in another place. What it has done, I think, is to bring out that the general understanding of that statement was different from the intention of the Government because, as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has just said, the Government do not regard this four-fifths point as applying to every case. When the 1779 statement was made, it was thought this would apply to every case and that there would be no such exception of the kind he has just mentioned. So that from that point of view it is less satisfactory. However, I think it has clarified what the Minister meant in his statement of 6th December. We should have liked to have had this in the Bill and for this to have been our interpretation of the statement of the Minister, because we think that would have given great reassurance to the companies embarking on investment.
My Lords, the noble Lord knows we agree that the Government need to have some powers in order to control rates of production later, in the 1980s and after, but we do not think it is necessary for them to be so flexible that the companies do not know beforehand roughly the limits within which they may be asked to reduce production. Having said that, we have no intention of trying to resist this proposal.

§ Lord BALOGH
My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the courtesy with which he has conducted this debate. Even so, we feel strongly about these things. I am very glad to have had a sparring partner such as the noble Lord.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lord I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for the way he has helped us by explaining the intentions of the Government. Apart from the last point, a great deal has been clarified. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who has sometimes had to answer points at short notice, but who has clearly always done his best to inform us of the situation. I should mention that my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who has taken a great deal of the burden of this Bill, is at the moment, I believe, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. He cannot be here, but I know he would wish to be associated with what I have said.

§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN
My Lords, I would also like to be associated with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said. If there had been time I would have taken up the allusion by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that 1780 to him it has seemed that the Opposition Benches were performing a Wagnerian opera with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as Siegfried and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, as Brunhilde. I was greatly interested and very happy about such allusions, because at last I thought we must have the perfect Wagnerite before us in the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The title, as you know, is enshrined in the book by Bernard Shaw. But, as the noble Lord sank back on to his bench, Wagnerian allusions crowded upon me, and I thought that he was the God Wotan sitting there with the spear broken in the shaft, broken by Siegfried. I am sure you will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, broke many of the Government's arguments by the graceful way of presenting his case. This account of the position of Wotan is to be found in that long prologue to the opera, The Twilight of the Gods. May I say there is no sinister motif at this time of night in my having quoted the title of that Wagnerian opera. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who like Loki has sat beside Wotan and done so much work in this debate.