HL Deb 15 October 1975 vol 364 cc880-96

2.58 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Balogh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]

Schedule 2 [Production licences for seaward areas]:

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

In the short time available in the last 10 minutes of the last Committee day on 25th September, I briefly moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 60, line 12, at end insert— (8A) Where in consequence of any breach or non-observance by the Licensee of any requirement imposed upon him by the provisions of this clause the Minister has power by virtue of paragraph (1) of clause 33 of this licence to revoke this licence he shall exercise that power only in relation to that part of the licensed area in respect of which the breach or non-observance has occurred and over which the programme extends; and where he does so the rights granted by this licence shall cease in respect of that area without prejudice to any obligation or liability imposed upon the Licensee or incurred by him under the terms of this licence. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, then had time to say that the Government could come some way to meet the point in the Amendment. This is a very significant reaction by the Government, though what really matters is whether the Government will meet the main point in Amendment No. 17. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that the Government proposed to table a Government Amendment at Report stage. We naturally welcome any sign of the Government shifting from their previously entrenched position on this important subject, because this is probably the most important issue in the whole Bill. It could govern the extent of the activity and future development of oil and gas resources in the British sector of the Continental Shelf more than any other part of the Government's attitude in the Bill.

Under the Bill as at present drafted, the Minister is given power to revoke the whole of a licence, although a breach or a non-observance of the licence conditions may be a minor one concerned with one small area of the licensed area. I would remind your Lordships that some individual licences cover several blocks and several oilfields. Your Lordships will recall that in this Bill the Government are seeking to alter the terms of licences as from a date in the near future; and this is not simply licences to be granted in the future; they are changing the terms of existing licences due still to run for some years. Here I would note, as I have before, that Norway has not done this, and they share with us the major part of the oil and gas resources in the North Sea.

The method by which this is to be done is to change the model clauses which are the bases of these licences, and Schedule 2 to the Bill shows how the model clauses are to be changed. This Amendment is addressed to Model Clause 15 on page 79. That deals with the development and production programmes of companies and consortia. Ministers are to have powers to decline approval for schemes or to direct companies, and the following situation could arise. A company might decide not to develop a marginal or non-commercial field, which might be a small one, because they have not got the financial resources or because they simply do not consider it worth while. They might have other successful fields coming into production under the samelicence—oilfields into which they have put massive investment. Such a company could be threatened with the loss of all those successful fields under the licence simply because they had taken the sensible commercial decision not to develop the small marginal field and the Minister at the time, for reasons of his own, had decided that that field had to be developed. I would also point out that the breach or non-observance which might cause this situation could be the result of the changes to the licences which arc being made in this Bill; that is to say, it could be a breach of a term which did not exist when the licence was first agreed and granted.

This provision, therefore, is not only unnecessary and unfair but is most likely to deter companies from entering upon new programmes on the British Continental Shelf. This is akin to a motorist being charged with over-staying for ten minutes at a parking meter and, as a result, having his car confiscated and his licence taken away for the rest of his lifetime. Moreover, it is as if the parking meter is one where the time-recording system has been changed while the car has been parked. That is the situation which this model clause as it stands would produce. No wonder the Government have now decided to make some change, which we shall examine with care. This situation cannot be justified. Indeed, it would seem designed to frighten away from our shores in future years those whose finance and skills are needed to extract the oil and gas, and this surely cannot be in British interests and cannot be what the Government seek to do.

In Model Clause 14, on page 78, which deals with exploration and not development of oilfields—it deals with surveys and drilling to find oil and gas—the Minister is given discretion to revoke part of a licence and not the whole licence. Under this Amendment, of course, we are seeking, not that the Minister should have discretion but that only part of the licence should be revoked in these circumstances; and the concession which we understand the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is now offering is to make Model Clause 15 on the same lines. But that means that the Minister could still decide to revoke part of the licence or could decide to take the licence away completely, and the Licensee could still be confronted with a decision by the Minister that the whole of the licence is to be revoked for what could be a comparatively minor infringement—and there is to be no arbitration. Under Model Clause 14, the one concerning exploration, a company can take the disputed matter to arbitration, but from what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, on the last occasion, no such recourse is to be available under the change he is suggesting to Model Clause 15. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us more about this today. Also in his remarks in relation to this matter on the last occasion the noble Lord said that it was necessary to retain the power of total revocation "as a weapon of last resort"—and those are the words he used. Surely the Government of the day and the oil companies and consortia should be working together. This should not be a battlefield; there should not be such terminology as "a weapon of last resort", particularly when this Government are speaking of 51 percent. participation. We know little of what that consists because it is being conducted by private and confidential conversations with individual companies, but if the Government are to participate on that scale there should not be such terminology as "weapons of last resort", and language of that kind. None of this will give much encouragement to companies who have already invested massive sums in the North Sea, or to those who are considering future investment on a similar scale.

The likely effect of these provisions on future activity in British waters is very great. We must have a clear explanation of the Government's attitude and intentions now. Is the new Government Amendment which is to be moved at Report stage to be nothing more than giving the Minister discretion to decide between total and partial revocation without arbitration? Then there is also the question of an alternative; that is to say, the voluntary surrender of part of a licence, which might well be a better course for a company than revocation of the whole licence. That is a matter for discussion under the next Amendment, No. 17A, so I will not pursue that but will merely mention it now. I hope that the Government will now tell us more and will recognise how crucial this matter is for the winning of Britain's indigenous oil supplies. I beg to move.

3.16 p.m.

Lord BALOGH

I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has said, and I understand the fears of the industry on this score. We are in close consultation with the industry and I hope that I shall meet them before the Report stage. The Amendment which, at the last sitting of the Committee, I indicated we should be willing to bring forward at Report stage was designed to reassure them. Although the Secretary of State will retain the option of total revocation, the mention in the licence of partial revocation will serve to ensure that the Secretary of State fully and carefully considers whether that would be the more appropriate course; and in many cases I am sure it would be. There would be no question of holding the threat of total revocation like a sword of Damocles over the heads of Licensees to force them to undertake unreasonable investment. That, after all, is one of the interesting and important functions or possible functions of BNOC, to undertake work which is on the margin, but that can be secured by the ordinary exploitation of the contract. Nor would there be any question of using the power of total revocation as a pretext for denying a Licensee a commercial field which happened to be in the same licensed area as the acreage which was the subject of dispute under the model clause. Quite apart from the fact that most commercial fields are likely to be the subject of separate licences, we have never acted like this and this is not the way we shall act in future. We value the presence of the oil companies far too highly to injure their confidence.

It was my hope that these assurances would suffice. I know, however, that the companies attach very great importance to securing a firm guarantee on this point, and I can understand their reasons for so doing. I shall consult with them further; but I must repeat that the licence is a unity and this unity should not be lightly infringed. That is the reason why we resisted in the first instance. However, in the very special circumstances which obtain in this case, I have concluded that we would be justified in making an exception, and so I am able to tell noble Lords that at Report stage we intend to bring forward Amendments which will ensure that, if there is a breach of the licence terms in respect of a programme under Model Clause 15, the Secretary of State will not be able to exercise his power of revocation so as to deprive a Licensee of a commercial field.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

If the words we shall see on the Marshalled List when we get to Report stage mean what I think they will mean, from what I heard from the noble Lord, then that is a very interesting and very valuable reply. There is a principle in this. To me, any suggestion that a Government should take retrospective powers to alter a contract that had been entered into is one that should be resisted on principle. If the noble Lord is giving the assurance that his words, when we get to the Report stage, will mean that the terms of the contract, as they stood when it was originally entered into, will not be altered—that is, that the power the Minister did not have then will not now be taken to be used retrospectively—then I think the principle I have in mind is well covered. If it does not mean that, then I hope that this Committee will very much resist such an interference with the sanctity of a contract.

Lord BALOGH

I should like to remind the noble Lord that I have explained not once but several times that no retrospection is involved at all. We are not making illegal something which was legal. We are only legislating for the future. It is not in the interests of this country that noble Lords should bandy about that word. While I am eager to listen to reasonable cases—and, as I have demonstrated, the Government are willing to make concessions—it seems to me that we ought not to have too much of that word, "retrospection", because it is not there.

Lord TREVELYAN

I am glad to hear the assurance of the Minister on the assumption, if I have interpreted correctly, that it meets the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put forward and which I strongly support. I should like to emphasise that this is a very important point if we are to maintain the confidence of those who invest in the development of oil in the North Sea.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I should like to put two points to the noble Lord on what he has said. First, as he knows, I have never used "retrospection" or "retroactive" during any of the debates on this Bill, because of the ambiguity. What my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls refers to is the changing of existing licences even though it is for the future. It is the changing of licences which were freely agreed in the past at a certain time, even though the changes will be for the future, because those licences and conditions were intended to extend into that period. I have not used the word "retrospective"—he cannot charge me with that—but I have in previous debates pointed out that the Government are trying to do something without compensation which affects agreements freely entered into in the past and which would still be continuing in effect into the future.

The Minister said that a Secretary of State in the future would not act unreasonably in forcing a company to do something and threatening the total revocation of a licence which might extend over several oilfields. We welcome that assurance, but, naturally, Parliament wants to make sure that the legislation is such that some future Government and some future Minister does not, in a situation he thinks is justified, use these powers unreasonably. That is why we must always watch carefully what goes into legislation despite the assurances which Ministers of Governments of the day may give us. I detected that the noble Lord spoke in the plural on this occasion and said that the Government would be putting down Amendments. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head so that I am glad to get that clarified.

That brings me to the next point. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said that he hoped that the Minister's reply met the point of Amendment No. 17; but we cannot really tell until we see it on the Marshalled List. Also, I do not think that the noble Lord mentioned the question of arbitration. I do not know whether he can deal with that now. I pointed out that arbitration is available under model Clause 14, but there has been no indication so far that the Government will make arrangements for arbitration under model Clause 15. That is a point which, if the Minister cannot answer now, we shall want to look at. For my own part, I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to reply to this now, if he can, before making any further comment.

Lord BALOGH

We are still in negotiation with the companies. I hope to see them. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with this reply. The whole matter will be clarified when we move the Amendment on the Report stage. The Amendment will contain some suitable phrase which will not permit the Secretary of State, when revoking part of a licence, to revoke it in respect of a commercial field.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

There is one point which I want to raise with the noble Lord on the question of the unity of the licence that he discussed. Is it not a fact, when we come to the question of BNOC participating in the licences, that the likelihood is that BNOC will want to participate in the successful commercial fields? If not, it is frightening to think of some of the things that BNOC may find itself getting into. If that is the case, what is BNOC going to participate in? If it is not the whole licence, it will surely participate in the successful part of the licence. Therefore, we are immediately saying that it is possible to split up these licences, to take one part and to look at it as a separate entity from another part.

This brings us back to the argument we are engaged in now which, in effect, is asking: "Is it not a pity to put the whole licence at risk, because there is an argument about the operation of one small part of it?" The noble Lord has gone some way to reassure us by saying that the commercial fields can be extracted and, as it were, pushed aside and made safe from the incursions that might take place as a result of forced operations that the company would not want to do. I am suggesting that, anyway, we shall have to split up these licences when we come to participation. I hope that the noble Lord will address himself to these points when bringing forward these Amendments that he has promised.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am proposing to end this debate. Therefore, before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment I would point out that the matter of arbitration has not been answered. I think the noble Lord says that we must wait for Report stage on that. The Committee will have realised that this is an Amendment on which, because of its importance, we would have asked the Committee to divide; but as the Government are beginning to see the light, and since they have said that they will table an Amendment for the Report stage, I shall not press this Amendment and will reserve the position for this Bench, so that we can again put down an Amendment on these lines which can be considered with the Government Amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.20 p.m.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 17A:

Page 60, line 18, at end insert— ("(10)(a) If the Minister shall give any notice to the Licensee pursuant to this clause either

  1. (i) rejecting a programme; or
  2. (ii) approving a programme subject to conditions otherwise than on the ground specified in paragraph (i) of paragraph (4)(c) of this clause; or
  3. (iii) requiring a programme to be carried out
or shall give a limitation notice in respect of any programme pursuant to clause 12B of this licence, the licensee may within 60 days after the service of such notice surrender the licence as to the whole or any part of the licensed area, being apart comprising the whole of the area to which the said programme relates; (b) on the surrender of the whole or any part of the licensed area pursuant to paragraph (a) of this clause there shall be paid by the Minister to the Licensee the fair value (disregarding the terms of the said notice given by the Minister) as between a willing seller and a willing purchaser, to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in pursuance of clause 34 of this licence, of the rights granted by the licence in so far as they relate to the part of the licensed area surrendered.")

The noble Lord said: I have listened with care to the assurances already given by the Minister in respect of the previous Amendment; but, in my view, the assurances given (so far as I understand them) do not quite meet the point of my Amendment. The background of my Amendment is very similar to the background already given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. It is directed to the model clause on working obligations which gives the Minister authority to serve written notice on a Licensee to carry out certain specified work programmes. Where there is any breach or nonobservance by the Licensee of such a working programme imposed by the Minister, the Minister may revoke the licence. But as the Minister has already said, he is proposing to deal with this in further Amendments produced by the Government on the question of not revoking the licence for any breach.

Consider the position of the Licensee when he has received a notice from the Secretary of State asking him to introduce some kind of working programme, and the Licensee decides for a variety of reasons, perfectly realistically and practically, that he may not be able to carry out these working arrangements. The Government may have felt the view of the Licensee, based on the experts they have both used, differs from their own, but the Government may consider that their experts are right in relation to geological matters. As those of us who have been concerned with technical matters know, the experts can differ quite honestly in facts arising out of their researches. There may be a different interpretation between the company, the Licensee and the Government on the basic data concerned with this matter. There may be other motives: the Government may wish to exercise the authority—that is, that they have to maintain employment in certain areas—and, from a national point of view, the arrangements made by the Licensee for drilling and production do not conform with that decision.

When the Minister therefore has decided to issue such a notice in regard to these working programmes, the purpose of my Amendment is to deal realistically and practically with the position as it then stands. The Licensee, in my submission, should be in a position to say to the Minister: "In all the circumstances, I am sorry I cannot carry on with this licence and I should like to surrender the licence to the Minister of State, the Secretary of State or to his nominee, or surrender a part of the licence." In taking a simple, straightforward, commercially understood, step it would of course be expected that some compensation should be given to the Licensee if the Secretary of State accepted such a surrender of the whole licence or part of it.

Therefore the first part of my Amendment enables the Licensee, in the circumstances in which he finds himself in relation to the Secretary of State's requirements, to be in a position to surrender the licence, or part of the licence, to the Secretary of State. The second aspect of my Amendment is that fair compensation should be paid to the Licensee if it is agreed that he has due and proper cause to take this step of surrendering the whole licence or part of it. The powers of arbitration under the Bill are still not very clear, and therefore the question regarding compensation could be referred to arbitration as paragraph (b) of my Amendment suggests. The matter should be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in pursuance of Clause 34 of the licence, or it could be referred to another tribunal if the parties so desired. I hope that I have not taken up too much time on this matter, but from the Licensee's point of view this aspect of being able to surrender the licence, or part of it, is important. It may be that the Minister will be able to give some assurances now on this question. I beg to move.

3.24 p.m.

Lord BALOGH

I had hoped, after our previous discussions, that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would not move his Amendment. I do not want to detain the Committee long in reply. It seeks to do two things—guarantee for the Licensee the option to surrender part of his licence if he objects to the Secretary of State's production or depletion requirements, and to provide, in the event of revocation, for compensation to be paid to the Licensees.

Partial surrender we have already discussed fully on the last Amendment (No. 17), and on compensation noble Lords have already inserted into the Bill Amendment No. 14 which comprises and indeed goes beyond what is proposed in this Amendment. Therefore it is not quite compatible. I do not think there is anything to add to what has been said on either of these topics, and since we have already deliberated the substance of the Amendment, I assume the noble Lord will not wish to press it.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

In view of the undertaking which the Government have given to deal with this situation and to amend model Clause 15, clearly we are now considering, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, another possibility; that is, a right to voluntary surrender of part of a licensed area. I would point out arrangements for surrender of licences and also for licences of part of a licensed area are available under model Clause 6 and that, together with model Clause 7, there are provisions for a company to surrender part of a licensed area provided that that licensed area meets the conditions laid down in model Clause 7 which describes how it should be delineated and it has to be of a certain kind. Notice has to be given of at least six months which is linked with an anniversary date. The principle of surrendering a licence is surely not an issue here because it is something which is available anyway to companies in general.

The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, at column 396 of Hansard in our previous discussion, referred to the licence as a single unit and gave us the impression it was not divisible. This may have been a concept some time ago; but surely it is ceasing to be a concept now, because under model Clause 14, which we have been discussing, the Minister is to have discretion to revoke only part of a licence, and he has given us an undertaking under model Clause 15 that a similar provision will now be made for model Clause 15. Thus the concept that a licence is indivisible is one that may have existed for a period in the past, but does not exist any longer.

Lord TREVELYAN

Surely it was not a similar discretion. My understanding of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was that the arrangements would be made which would prevent the Secretary of State from asking for surrender of the whole of the licence.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My understanding of the undertaking given by the Government—and, again, this means that we have to wait to see the Amendment when it is tabled—is that they will table an Amendment which will give discretion to the Minister to revoke the whole of the licence or part of it, but that it will be so worded that commercial oilfields will not be included in the revocation. I know that is a summary of what the noble Lord said, but if I am incorrect, I will gladly give way. I understand that I have it right. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, whose support in this I value because he knows about this industry in a way that many of us do not.

I was simply pointing out that the concept of a licence having to be a single unit and remain one, even though it covers several oilfields, if it ever existed, certainly is no longer with us. The bringing in of the petroleum revenue tax, the new system of taxation for oil, has in the first place made a nonsense of that because that is a tax which is levied on each oilfield; each oilfield is taxed separately. Companies are not taxed on their activities in offshore oil, each oilfield is taxed as a separate unit. That goes across the individual licences. I do not think the Minister can rest on that argument which he gave us last time.

I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will not press this Amendment because of the undertaking Which the Government have given to us. But it has given us an opportunity to consider this as another way in which a company can voluntarily surrender its licence where it feels it cannot, for very good reasons, carry out some directive by the Minister and would prefer to leave it to be done by somebody else; or where for some reason it would prefer to surrender a licence rather than have it revoked. This is another possibility which I hope the Minister will bear in mind.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for the concessions that he has made. I do not propose to press the Amendment but shall await the Amendments which are to be produced by the Government later. However, I want to make it quite clear, having regard to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, that in this Amendment I am adumbrating that the licensee, when he quite sincerely and conscientiously cannot carry out the notice for the working arrangements, should have the right to surender the licence, or part of it, subject to the determination by a tribunal of adequate compensation. In the circumstances, and once again thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his concessions in this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ORR-EWING

May I just ask the Table whether we are taking Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together?

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I think it would be helpful if Amendment No. 19 were discussed with Amendment No. 18.

3.32 p.m.

Lord ORR-EWING moved Amendment No. 18: Page 61, line 10, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;").

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment where we are really trying to help the noble Lord the Minister. We are in our most helpful and convivial mood, but I have not been in the Chamber long enough to know whether or not the noble Lord is in one of his most co-operative moods. This Amendment brings into the Bill something which seems to us highly desirable: an assurance which was given by the Minister, Mr. Varley, in another place. We have had three clear references to this assurance and, as noble Lords will see, the first part of the Amendment ensures that the licensees and the programme will not be cut so drastically as to do harm. It will be cut by only 20 per cent. Mr. Varley gave an assurance of this in a Written Answer on Friday, 6th December, in another place in a very full Statement. One suspects that perhaps that was an inspired Question—they generally are when put in written form on Fridays and towards the ends of Sessions. To make sure that no one overlooked the report in Hansard on that Friday, to Press Statement was put out by his Department. This sets out in very clear terms an assurance, and it says: The main parts from Mr. Varley's Answer are that there will be no delays on the development of finds already made up to the end of 1972 under existing licences; full consultation with companies, should it prove necessary to delay the development of finds made in 1976 or later, so that premature investment is avoided … Then it goes on to draw from his Statement, which was much longer than is given here, the two points which are now incorporated in these two Amendments. So it was clear that the Government felt these points were causing some anxiety to the oil companies and the consortia and that it was in the interests of everyone that they should be stated. The points were also incorporated in the Brown Book. So not only do we have the Written Answer but we have the Press release—a copy of which I have in my hand—which makes the point very firmly, and we also have this incorporated in the Government's Brown Book, or what we call "The Bible".

So here we have three statements—and I am sure it would be in comformity with the Government's views—that it is better to write this into the Bill than to rely on an assurance given by a Minister. There can be nothing against this, and if the noble Lord the Minister is in a co-operative mood I am sure he will come to accept it. I would make the point that you need to have an assurance of this sort, and one which should be written into the Bill. I hope very much that the noble Lord the Minister will be forthcoming. I feel sure he will, because this is quite in comformity with the Government's thinking and with their statements, together with their publications and the Press release. Therefore I hope that these two Amendments will be accepted. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to restrict the reduction in the rate of extraction which may be specified in a limitation notice to 20 per cent. Incidentally, I should have said immediately that I will certainly take this Amendment in conjunction with No. 19. I should also like to take with it Amendment No. 26.

I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge that considerable concessions have already been made on these depletion controls. The system of limitation notices, introduced in Committee in another place, now allows a licensee to know at the outset of production the maximum change which might be required of him. Before such a limitation notice is issued, the Secretary of State must consult with the licensee and consider his representation I need hardly stress again the importance of depletion control: I am sure all your Lordships are aware of it. North Sea oil is not only a timely discovery of tremendous value to this country, it is also a finite resource. We must approach its exploitation in the realisation that it will not last for ever. For the sake of succeeding generations we dare not extract the oil recklessly or wastefully without thought for them or for the long-term economic or social cost to the country as a whole. That means that it is necessary to have a sensible and flexible policy of depletion control.

I do not think we can go further in the imposition of limits and restrictions on the Secretary of State's discretion without rendering the clause too poor an instrument adequately to protect the national interest. It may well be that in many cases 20 per cent. will prove to be the maximum cut-back which can reasonably and practicably be demanded. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out, the Secretary of State indicated as much in his Statement on 6th December last. If this is so, it is open to the licensee to make his case when the limitation notice is drawn up. But to exclude any possibility of a higher figure being appropriate and being agreed in any case is unnecessarily to inhibit the operation of the clause. Therefore I must ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 18 and 26. However, as regards Amendments Nos. 19 and 27, I fully sympathise with the intention behind them, which would require the Secretary of State. before issuing a limitation notice, specifically to consider representation from the licensee on commercial and financial matters. I can assure the Committee that, with or without the Amendment, the Secretary of State will consider recommendations about financing and commercial viability. I do not think any Amendment is strictly necessary, but at the same time I can see that some more specific reference to representations on financial matters might be desirable. Therefore, since we seem to be starting in a conciliatory mood this afternoon, I am willing to consider whether or not we can bring forward something on Report, if the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment.

Lord STRABOLGI

This may be a convenient moment for your Lordships to hear the Statement which is at present being made in the other place. If that is acceptable, I beg to move that this House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.