Lords Sitting of 24 May 1979

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
Lord Saint Levan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

THE HELSINKI AGREEMENT
Lord JANNER: 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 what steps they have taken in conjunction with other Governments to implement the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are in active consultation with the Governments of other co-signatory States with the aim of promoting progress in all aspects of implementation of the Helsinki Final Act.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to take into consideration and, with other civilised people, deal as effectively as he possibly can with the terrible acts that are taking place at the present time against people particularly in the USSR, where, for example, a woman named Ida Nudel has been exiled to Siberia, has been put in a hut with criminals and with no other women about, and is being quite unlawfully detained? Will he see to that and other cases of people in both the USSR and other countries, in view of the fact that there are considerable breaches at present of the Helsinki Agreement?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the case which the noble Lord raises if he will give me details afterwards; it is not one about which I have details at the moment.
482
There are two additional points I might make which I hope will help the noble Lord and the House. We take the view that the best way to proceed in the question of the Russian dissidents and "refuseniks," as they are called, is by action and discussion behind the scenes rather than a continual strident denunciation of Soviet policies, which seems to happen in other countries and which we think is sometimes counter-productive. Our activities in this regard have not been without success. There are now nearly 40,000 successful applications for exit visas in the USSR each year and only about 2,000 initial refusals, and some of those initial refusals are granted at a later date. This number of successful applications has shown a dramatic increase in the last 12 months.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Soviet Union is not indifferent to public and international criticism?
Lord TREFGARNE: No doubt they are not indifferent to it, my Lords, but as I have said before, it is sometimes counter-productive and we prefer to use the other course.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Answer he has given, but may I ask whether he is aware—I am sure he is—that there are still many people making applications and being refused and in some cases being sent to mental hospitals in order to be given treatment which is terrible and most degrading? Is he further aware that, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said, the USSR is in the view of many of us sensitive to criticism from abroad of a public nature, particularly now, when the Olympic Games are about to be played?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, I think we accept that but, as I said, we prefer to take the line of careful consideration behind the scenes. We do not rule out public declarations in appropriate cases, but in general we prefer the more cautious line.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, do the Government really think that as realists it is possible for the Soviet Government to abide by the non-binding obligations in respect of human rights of Helsinki?
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not suppose they will comply with all their obligations overnight, my Lords. We never thought they would, but some progress has been made—notably, as I have mentioned, in the number of exit visas granted to Jewish citizens in the USSR which, as I have said, have nearly doubled in the last 12 months.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I inform the Minister, drawing on my own experience, that I agree on the efficacy of diplomatic bilateral approaches in these matters? At the same time, as my noble friend has pointed out, it is necessary to keep this issue very much alive in the public mind here and in other countries. May I have his assurance—I am sure he will give it me—that between now and the next review conference, which will be held in Madrid next year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will, as we did in my time, seek to have bilateral discussions with as many countries as possible who will be involved in that review conference particularly on the question of human rights, so that we all arrive in Madrid with a better prospect of practical results on human rights than we did in Belgrade?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I gladly give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. In fact the bilateral discussions he mentions are already in progress.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, may I ask whether those bilateral discussions will be extended in particular to the Nine, so that, with good fortune, by the time we reach Madrid there may be some common European approach to these problems?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, indeed, my Lords; the discussions include the Nine.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Question refers to the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement. Would the noble Lord not agree that the major section of the Helsinki Agreement was concerned with economic co-operation and integration, and can he report on the progress which has been made in that respect?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I would not say that that was the major provision of the Helsinki Agreement,
484
though it was certainly one of them. With regard to progress on that particular matter, since the Belgrade meeting there have been three meetings below ministerial level, and one in particular—the meeting at Valletta—covered the question of economic co-operation, and I am happy to say that some progress was made.

TERRORISM
11.15 a.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name of the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken in conjunction with other Governments to deal with terrorism.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government will maintain and, indeed, strengthen the United Kingdom's support for international co-operation against terrorism, including hijacking. This cooperation, which covers both legal and practical measures, is continuing in the European Community, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and other international groupings, as well as bilaterally.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he be good enough to investigate once more the PLO, which has claimed responsibility, for example, for an incident in Nahariyya very recently in which a child of four was shot in the head and afterwards hit on the head, its skull being bashed in with the butt of a rifle? Will the noble Lord realise that in incidents of this kind the PLO is claiming responsibility and that it is an international gangster movement? Will he please investigate the position now and see to it that the PLO's office here is not maintained? The organisation is acting not only against Israel or any other country, but also against ourselves.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the PLO is essentially a political organisation. Most of the terrorist acts that come to our notice are committed by organisations which are certainly affiliated to the PLO—

485
not necessarily by the PLO itself. Of course we unreservedly condemn all terrorist acts, whether committed by the PLO, organisations affiliated to it, or anyone else. With regard to the question of the PLO office in London, I should say that any organisation is entitled to establish an office in London, provided that its subsequent activities do not conflict with British law. The PLO representative who has, I think, worked in the Arab League Office since 1971, has no diplomatic immunity or any other appropriate status, and we so far at least have no evidence of any unlawful activity by the PLO office here in London.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the report in this morning's Daily Mirror about the likelihood of General Amin investigating the possibility of placing atomic devices in at least six capitals in collusion with other terrorist organisations, and will the Government at some time make a Statement on this matter?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I regret that I did not read that report in the Daily Mirror, but I shall look into the matter.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in the last few months with regard to countries that harbour terrorists—I have in mind, for instance, Air Libya and other airlines or countries which are members of IATA—in such a way that IATA can say that the airlines of these countries are not allowed to land at "civilised" airports throughout the world?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord will probably recall that the Bonn Declaration produced a statement to that effect. As for IATA, I think that the most effective aviation forum for these matters is the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which I consider is dealing with the position rather effectively. On 4th October 1977 it passed a resolution which has yet to be ratified by all the members, but we hope that it will be in due course. With regard to the position in the United Kingdom, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Trade and the Home Secretary have the necessary powers to take any measure
486
which might seem appropriate under the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973 and the Policing of Airports Act 1974.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would accept rather belatedly a little assistance from me in trying to explain the relationship between the terrorist group and the PLO. Would he accept that it is almost an exact replica of the relationship between the Stern Gang and the Hagarah when they blew up the King David Hotel, and when they hanged two British soldiers in an orange grove near Nathania, and then mined their bodies?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I agree that it is sometimes rather difficult to draw distinctions, but I should say that the PLO has very often disclaimed responsibility and indeed has condemned a number of the terrorist acts which have taken place.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. Are the Government aware that actions of the kind taken by my noble friend have resulted in entire misrepresentation of the situation so far as the incident at the King David Hotel is concerned, for example? I might direct my noble friend's attention to my reference to this matter the day before yesterday. Would he please understand that the PLO, with its affiliates, is a danger to the civilisation of the world; and that, in so far as our own country is concerned, the PLO office is, either itself or through affiliates, connected with those who are attacking our soldiers and forces in Ulster?
Several noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is rather a long supplementary question. I think I can answer it, though, in just a few words. We continue unreservedly to condemn all terrorist acts, whoever commits them, whether it be the PLO, affiliates to the PLO or some other body. The PLO office in London continues to comply with the law, and while it does so we cannot do anything about it—nor should we.

CUBAN AND USSR PERSONNEL IN AFRICA
11.21 a.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 they have information on the number of (a) Cuban military personnel, and (b) USSR advisory and ancillary personnel, serving in the following five countries encircling Rhodesia: Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania and Mozambique.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, reports indicate that there are approximately 20,000 Cubans in Angola, a large number of whom are military personnel. No accurate estimate can be given of the USSR advisory and ancillary personnel in Angola, or of the numbers of Cuban military and USSR advisory and ancillary personnel currently serving in Zambia, Tanzania and Mozambique. So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, there arc no Cuban or USSR personnel in Malawi.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the new Government now take a fresh initiative and make it clear to, first, the Soviet Union and, secondly, the Cubans that the widespread intervention by their personnel is totally against the spirit of Helsinki and further undermines any residual faith in détente?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we regard the intervention of the Soviet Union, or indeed the Cubans, as a matter of great concern. The Soviet Union are perfectly well aware that good East-West relations do not refer only to the Soviet Union and Great Britain, and that they are at risk if the Soviet Union or others seek to exploit the instability of other countries. They are fully aware of that. With regard to Cuba, I can tell my noble friend that when the Cuban Ambassador called on my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the other day he was told in no uncertain terms how much Her Majesty's Government disapproved of the presence of Cuban troops in Africa.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if more sympathy were shown to the problems of the African countries and there were less blind antipathy towards them on the part of some noble Lords, there would be less likelihood of their needing assistance from other powers?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think that what has happened in the last few days indicates that Her Majesty's Government are acutely aware of the very sensitive area around Rhodesia and in all the countries to which my noble friend has referred in his Question; and it is because of this acutely sensitive nature that the Government wish to do all that they can to bring the problems of Rhodesia and the encircling countries to a fruitful solution.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, the Minister is giving us a generous array of figures about Cubans. Is he in a position to say what is the estimated number of Cubans in Somalia?
Earl FERRERS: Not without notice, my Lords, No.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while realising that the noble Earl and the Government may not wish to compromise their intelligence sources by giving figures, may I ask whether they will bear in mind that if some figures were given it would help inform Commonwealth countries and Third World countries where the motivation of the Patriotic Front is coming from? While they must balance this against the (as I say) compromising of intelligence sources, it is not without advantage for the world to know just what support the Patriotic Front is getting from foreign troops and foreign advisers.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the concern of my noble friend, and I am sure that he will appreciate, as he has suggested in his supplementary question, that there is a balance to be achieved between divulging what information you have and not divulging what information you have. On the whole, we have concluded that the answer that I have given is the one most likely to have the desired effect.

RHODESIA—ZIMBABWE: CONFERENCE ON ELECTIONS
11.25 a.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: 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 they will explore the possibility of calling a conference between the new regime in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe and the leaders of the Patriotic Front to try and secure agreement for internationally supervised elections.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we do not rule out any of the possible ways of bringing Rhodesia back to legality in circumstances which would command wide international acceptance and contribute to a peaceful solution. As the noble Lord is aware, it has not in the past proved possible to secure agreement among the parties on a basis for internationally supervised elections.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would the noble Earl opposite give this House a direct answer as to whether Her Majesty's Government consider that the Fifth Principle has been fulfilled; that is, that the constitution—not the election, but the constitution—has been submitted to the Rhodesian people as a whole? Secondly, does his Answer suggest that Her Majesty's Government consider that the Patriotic Front has no further part to play in the future agreement in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, Rhodesia has been subjected to elections, the results of which are known, and it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to try to build on the results of those elections. With regard to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, as to whether the Patriotic Front has no more purpose (I think he said) in Rhodesia, or part to play in Rhodesia, it is my noble friend's intention that we should aim to return Rhodesia to legality and achieve the lifting of sanctions in the context of a wide international recognition. In that context, of course, the Patriotic Front has a part to play.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: But, my Lords, would the noble Earl please
490
answer my first supplementary question? Do Her Majesty's Government consider that the Fifth Principle has been fulfilled; that is, the submission of the constitution to the people of Rhodesia as a whole—the constitution, not the election?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is our understanding that the election has taken place and was as a result of the conditions which obtained at the time. The result of that election is what we are trying to build on. What the noble Lord is concerned about, I think I am right in saying, is the fact that the Patriotic Front was not part of the transitional administration, and in that respect, of course, it was not possible to come to any agreement.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the noble Earl ever find himself in any intellectual difficulty in supporting law and order in this country—a major factor in the recent election—and, at the same time, supporting rebellion and rebels in Rhodesia?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am always in perpetual intellectual difficulty when I try to answer questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. Our whole purpose in this very sensitive area is to try to get a solution and build on what has happened, and the only way you can do that is by trying to get an internationally accepted situation. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, to realise, as I know he does, that this is a very difficult period of time and I would not wish to be pressed too far.
Lord WIGG: The point is, of course, my Lords, that I have always realised that it was a difficult problem and the Conservative Party have been converted to that point of view only in the last few days.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think that is an extreme point of view, which is not exactly unusual to the noble Lord.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in considering the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, in relation to the constitution, is it not true that the leaders of all the parties who stood in the elections in Rhodesia were well aware of what they were standing for and that they supported the constitution? Parallel to that, could we not take the example

491
of Scotland where the referendum was on the question of the Scotland Act, where very few copies of that Act were available and where, no doubt, nine-tenths did not vote on the Scotland Act but answered the perfectly straight question in the referendum and were not expected to read the whole of the Scotland Act? This was a very fair parallel. Will my noble friend confirm that the Patriotic Front were asked to take part in the elections and refused and said that they would increase their efforts to disturb the peace while the elections took place?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend along the fascinating path of comparison between Rhodesia and Scotland but I understand the point she made. She is wholly right in saying that the Patriotic Front were invited to take part in the elections but they had insisted on a dominant role in the Administration and control of the security forces during the transition. That was where the difficulty arose and that is why they did not take part.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the present Government are having any discussions—and, if so, what about—with the Rhodesian Patriotic Front?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is the present Government's intention to discuss as much as possible with all the countries and all the people concerned—and that will include the Patriotic Front.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, does it serve any useful purpose day after day to raise this question while discussions are going on in Africa? Surely, everlasting debate in this House will not help the discussions.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend's view and I hope that he has a great deal of sympathy with what I have tried to say. In fact, we are at this moment in a situation of great delicacy. I would not wish anything that I should say or that any noble Lord should say to add to the problems there. The great problem is to try to get this situation resolved in as amicable and
492
internationally acceptable a way as possible.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Earl confirm or correct the statement that the constitution reserves to the white population certain key posts for a period in the administration of the new Government?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is correct in saying that there are certain positions which may be held by white people in Rhodesia.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may or must?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I should think—and I am subject to correction—that it might be the latter.
Lord PLUNKET: My Lords, will the Minister agree that rather than try to call the sort of conference which has been suggested and which might end like the Geneva Conference, it would be better to try to encourage the present leaders in Rhodesia to come to an accommodation with the external leaders?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, this is what the whole problem has been about for so long. It is this problem that my noble friend is endeavouring to solve at the moment. I hope that he will have the sympathy of the House in the exercise of this task.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, looking realistically at the future, and in view of the uncertain stability of the interim government because of the divisions within it and the disproportionate strength of Mr. Ian Smith, is not the only solution (if one is to be reached) to find a means by which there will be discussions not only within Zimbabwe but with the Patriotic Front and the front-line Governments?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the only way to get effective results is by international agreement and that means by discussion.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, my question really has not been answered. I am still asking whether Her Majesty's

493
Government consider that the Fifth Principle has or has not been fulfilled. I would remind the noble Earl—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has asked for clarification on a point. If he would just give my noble friend time to answer that, I think it is probably the feeling of the House that by that time Question Time will have gone on for long enough.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I was going to try to help the noble Earl to understand the purport of my question by referring him—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd went out to Rhodesia to see what happened and what was going on at the time. It is on the presentation of his report that the Government will take their view; and that will be published shortly.

PRIVILEGES
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 72, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:—

Beswick, L.

Byers, L.

Champion, L.

Denham, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Molson, L.

Peart, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Shackleton, L.

494

Soames, L. (L. President)

Wigoder, L.—(Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND LORDS' EXPENSES
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L.—(Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.)

Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether we can understand that the Committee in their deliberations will bear in mind the effects of inflation?
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, anything suggested by the noble Lord will be borne in mind by any Committee of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1979
11.37 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft order which is before the House is to extend the Pool Competitions Act 1971 for a further period of twelve months from 27th July 1979. The competitions with which the 1971 Act is concerned are competitions for prizes based on the outcome of sporting events, especially

495
football matches. They are not commercial football pools. Part of the proceeds from these competitions go in support of charities or sports. The Spastics Society and some cricket and football clubs are examples of bodies which have derived substantial income from this source. The promoters had originally thought that these competitions constituted lawful pool betting, but it was held in a judgment of your Lordships' House that these were unlawful lotteries. This was because prizes were given not for making forecasts, but for holding numbers which happened to "come up" in a particular week's competition.
I shall not go into further detail about this. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is sitting on the Front Bench opposite. He spoke on the then Government side on this competition a year ago. I will, however, do my best to answer questions which your Lordships may put to me. But first may I come to the problem which the presentation of this order presents. The difficulty is this. It was envisaged, even at the time when the 1971 Act—
that is, the principal Act under which this order is presented—was passed, that a more permanent resolution of the situation of these pool competitions (which were held by the judgment of your Lordships' House to be unlawful) would be made in due course. The 1971 Act was, therefore, passed to run for a period of only five years up to July 1976. The Act also contains provision however for orders such as the one I am presenting this morning to provide for periods of extension up to one year.
Three successive orders have been made, with the result that the Act is currently due to expire on 26th July this year. The Act was extended on three previous occasions because it was thought appropriate to await the comments which the Royal Commission on Gambling would make on the competitions for which the Act provides. The Royal Commission reported last July—
that was after the time that this order was taken last year—and recommended that the Act should be allowed to expire in July this year.
The Royal Commission—and I must be quite open about this—did not regard
496
the special provisions of the 1971 Act as being necessary to the bodies concerned because the Royal Commission held that they can become ordinary lotteries. It appeared to the previous Government and it appears to the present Government that decisions really ought to be reached on the Royal Commission's recommendations taken as a whole, not least because the Royal Commission was highly critical of the working of the 1976 Lotteries and Amusements Act. The point is that if these pool competitions which fall within the scope of this order today were to be made unlawful because your Lordships would not agree to this order, the only thing they could possibly do would be to register under the 1976 Act, and the Royal Commission on Gambling were highly critical of the workings of that Act. Because time was seen to be running out for the 1971 Act unless this order was presented, the previous Secretary of State laid this order before both Houses of Parliament on 20th March, having previously explained in another place on 8th February, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that the previous Government recognised the difficulties which the expiry of the Act would cause for the charitable and sporting organisations which at the moment benefit from the 1971 Act.
My Lords, in these circumstances I hope that the House will agree that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 should be extended for a further year. I suggest this will give all concerned an opportunity to consider the matter further. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th March, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
11.42 a.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships for very long because I subscribe to everything that the noble Lord has said. It is perfectly true that in the past two, if not three, years I have moved a similar draft order in your Lordships' House. The time has come—and the noble Lord will probably agree—when this matter has to be looked at afresh once and for all. A year ago we were awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission on Gambling and I gather from what the noble Lord has

497
said that within the foreseeable future the Government will come forward with some recommendation and advice as to how to deal with this matter in the future. Meanwhile, the draft order should receive your Lordships' approval because without it a number of charitable and sporting organisations would lose a significant part of their income, and in these days this is something we wish to avoid. Therefore, with the reservation regarding asking the Government to come forward in the not too distant future with something much more definite than we have had hitherto, I support this order.
11.43 a.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, all fairy stories have two things in common: they all start with "Once upon a time" and they all end with "They lived happily ever after". The account given by the Minister today is slightly abridged and the statement made for the Opposition is one with which I wholly dissociate myself, because they too have something to hide. The problem which arises is a by-product of what is essentially the British disease: humbug. I define that as saying one thing and doing another.
With your Lordships' permission, I am going to treat this problem not as a fairy story but as an account of the facts. Legislation dealing with gambling and all its aspects has been the subject now of goodness knows how many Royal Commissions. The report, when received, has been put on the shelf and the dust has gathered. Then, a decade or so later, something has to be done about it. The report is taken down from the shelf and, without further examination, some of the recommendations are put into operation. But of course time has marched on; circumstances have changed.
So what happens, my Lords? A number of publicly spirited people connected with charities and sports found a way of raising very considerable sums of money. I am not supporting one or the other: there is football and cricket and there is the excellent and noble work carried out by the Spastics Society. Then somebody takes the view that what they are doing is unlawful; they are engaged in forecasting the result of a sporting activity. The matter comes up through the courts to your Lordships' House with I think
498
Viscount Hailsham (as he then was) leading for one of the parties.
The conclusion reached was that they were not forecasting the result; what they were doing was forecasting what a group of people said the result might be. This is a distinction which strains one's thinking a little, but after giving it due thought one can comprehend what they are getting at. The only point I would make is that people who go in for this competition and who are forecasting can never know whether they have won or lost. The point at which the ball is said to be obliterated from the picture—I am assuming your Lordships understand "Spot the Ball" or similar competitions—would produce 20,000 different answers in the space of one inch. However, that is not all the story. If one goes in for these competitions—and I am now looking at the problem as a whole, "Spot the Ball" as well as prize competitions—you pay your money and you can never engage in any correspondence whether you won or lost or whether your forecast has been put into the pool. Correspondence is expressly forbidden and so the competition lays itself open to all sorts of corruption.
As a result of a legal decision these various activities were forbidden. They were held to be in contravention of the law and many went out of existence. A lot more ran as lotteries and a few have continued under the Pool Competitions Act. That Act was explained to Parliament—I thought most lucidly— by Mr. Mark Carlisle, who is now a Minister. This was as long ago as February 1971. But he realised that he was asking Parliament to legislate on a very difficult and complicated subject which had been bequeathed to us because of the failure to face up to a situation which involved a very considerable number of our fellow citizens who, whether we like it or not, were engaged in the activity either legally or illegally.
In order to sweeten the atmosphere, he promised a review. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not refer to that review which was undertaken and a report was submitted to Parliament—it was the report of the interdepartmental working party on lotteries (Cmnd 5506)—as long ago as December 1973. That was the period when the Conservative party were in power. It was not brought forward with any

499
great alacrity by the administration because they were dealing with a very hot subject at that time—it may not be so hot today: a limit on the amount that could be won at bingo. However, there was no limit on the amount that could be won through football pools.
I think I can present the problem in a form which I, anyway, can comprehend. Great arguments go on whether we should have a national lottery. We have a national lottery. Other countries run their national lotteries but we are operating already a very efficient national lottery: the football pools. That is what it is. The people who win astronomical prizes are not people who have displayed great skill as to whether Liverpool will beat Nottingham Forest or results of that kind; they do it by putting down a block of numbers which somebody thinks up and they go in for it week after week. Suddenly a million-to-one chance comes up and, hey presto! they are millionaires overnight.
There are those who think—and clearly the interdepartmental committee thought—that a limit should he put on the national lottery. But something else has happened. It does not concern the Home Office but it does concern the Government as a whole. When the Labour Government took power in October 1964, the total amount that accrued to the Revenue by way of tax on gambling was £33 million. Now, in 1978/79, it is nearly £400 million; and of course the Board of Customs and Excise, whose responsibility it is to gather revenue as and when they can within the legislation which Parliament enacts, are concerned with the protection of the revenue. If, therefore, you put a limit on what can be won through the pools it would have the same effect as was brought about in 1963 by Mr. Reginald Maudling, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he knocked out fixed-odds betting—deleted it by the stroke of a pen. God forbid that I should put the idea into anyone's mind that the pools were subscribers to the Tory Party!—but the facts are that those who ran fixed-odds betting were put out of business and the football pools flourished. They go on flourishing today, and they have spread out into all sorts of other activities as they diversify.
The fact is that if the pools competition were allowed to lapse it would put an
500
end to the activities of the football clubs that remain. I should have thought that that was unjust and would create a great deal of harm, so for that reason I do not oppose the order. But I think that this unsatisfactory state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. I would remind your Lordships that in 1971 there was a Bill, and there was to be a review after five years and a body of officials was set up. They present a report to Parliament but nothing is done about it; and then the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who was not then a Minister, came to this House and moved for Papers.
We had a debate here on 30th January 1974. I remember that debate only too well because among the principal speakers were a Bishop and a noble Lord speaking for the Labour Party. They were both "holy men": that is to say they disclaimed knowing anything about gambling, which was very evident from their speeches. They also claimed great superiority in that they had never betted in their lives. I, on the other hand, belong to the unworthy poor, if I may say so. I am not sure about being glad that I am poor but I know that I am unworthy and I want to remain unworthy, because I bet and sometimes I lose and sometimes I win, like many of my fellow countrymen. I think it has to be accepted, or at least I would assert that it has to be accepted, that betting and forecasting results, in whatever form it may take place, is part of the leisure industry. Betting shops as such flourish because they meet a need. People of like mind can meet together and people who engage in trying to win the pools do so in the hope of winning a vast sum with a small outlay.
Anyway, nothing was done about the interdepartmental report. Two Ministers—members of the Conservative Party but not members of the Government, namely the noble Lords, Lord Carr of Hadley and Lord Campbell of Croy—recommended the interdepartmental report to the House for discussion and action. That was five years ago and nothing has happened. So in 1975 we have the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission starts work, and of course anything that the Home Office can sweep under the counter is swept under the counter by the formula that it, "must all wait until the Royal Commission". The Royal Com-

501
mission have reported, of course, and I would invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that quite early in the game, in the very earliest stages, they say this:
"It is important to appreciate that a number of our recommendations are interlocking and therefore that the implementation of one and not another could well cause serious misunderstanding if not chaos".
That is the situation about the recommendation in connection with the pool competitions: if it were abandoned, it would lead to a disastrous situation.
My Lords, if in fact the order is not renewed then the seven undertakings which still operate would have to use the facilities available to them under the law—namely, the Lotteries Act. In this connection I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Royal Commission was "critical" of the lotteries. This is what they said:
"There is wholesale disregard of the law which is inadequate and confused, commercial exploitation to a totally unacceptable degree, gross lack of security and, we strongly suspect, a good deal of plain dishonesty".
If you will forgive my saying so, it seems to be rather an abuse of the English language to say that that was "critical". It was something more than critical: it cried aloud for immediate action, because this has not come like a thief in the night. There is a whole section of the Royal Commission's report which deals with changes in the law from 1975 to 1977 and, of course with the situation of the law as regards lotteries as a whole.
This is not the first time that I have intervened on this subject. Way back in, I think, 1975, or at any rate after the new Labour Government took office, a Private Member's Bill was passed. It had a curious history as to how it was moved in another place, but it went through all the proceedings and came to your Lordships' House. I subsequently learned that I had broken all the conventions, but I came down to the House, not expecting any support but having done exactly what I have done today—that is to say, having done my homework. I recalled to your Lordships what this Private Member's Bill would do and how utterly wrong it was. I suggested that there should be a general review of the law as a whole to get rid of the humbug, and said that the law, whatever it may be, should take into account the facts of the situation

502
as they are, however complicated they may be.
To my surprise, although I did not get any support from the Labour Party Front Bench, at least not in the Lobby, a number of your Lordships were sufficiently impressed by what I said to vote with me and the Second Reading was refused. On innumerable occasions I have written to the Home Office. I am completely sure that the Gaming Board have done the same. The head of the Gaming Board is a very wise and good man—a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Allen. He was the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. He warned the Home Office over and over again about the nonsensical situation which had been allowed to grow up, and which made it utterly impossible to do anything about the Pool Competitions Act except to extend it, to get a little more elbow room and a little more time to waste.
So where have we got to? The Royal Commission took two and a half years to report. If the Duke of Devonshire had been here, I am sure that by this time I would have been interrupted and asked to declare my position in these matters. I have done it on so many occasions that it is like a gramophone record. If it has not worn out the record, it has worn out the needle. But in the debate I went into very great detail, as I have done on many occasions. I became a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board to represent the Labour Party—or, at least, I was asked to go on it by the Leader of the Labour Party. As I have always done, I tried to understand the problem with which I was called upon to deal. Subsequently, I was a member of the small group which did the negotiations in connection with the legislation, and afterwards I became a member of the Totalisator Board, being put on it for a second time by a Conservative Minister. Then I was chairman of the Levy Board, and I was also a member of the small committee which Mr. Wilson set up to go into the legislation which led to the increase in revenue.
I am in it up to my neck. I have no particular interest in the Pool Competitions Act, but, if only for the reasons I have given and the amount of time that I have spent over the years, I have struggled to try to get the nature of the problem

503
understood—not necessarily my solution to the problem accepted—because it affects a great deal of our national life. It is open to criminal exploitation, the Royal Commission itself says that there is dishonesty which ought to be put right and there have been dangers in the past of infiltration by the Mafia. I think that the Gaming Board has acted soberly, properly and competently and I only wish that its advice had been taken. It gave evidence. I, too, gave evidence to the Royal Commission and to the Select Committee, in two roles—as president of BOLA, but also in my personal position, which is what I am doing today. This is my own personal view and nothing more.
So that I corresponded with the late Home Secretary, I corresponded with his junior Minister and I tried to explain the situation to the officials, but with no effect. So what happened? The Royal Commission reported in July of last year. A question was asked of the Home Secretary in August 1978: "What are you going to do about it?", to which he replied "It has produced a wide-ranging and comprehensive report and I am giving urgent consideration to the Commission's recommendation on society and local government lotteries". So that seven years after the original Pool Competitions Act, it is going to be treated as a matter of urgency. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if it had not been an urgent question.
They had the report in July and they must have known of its contents a great deal earlier, because all the officials concerned were Home Office officials. But then we had a great announcement. The Home Office is to set up a special unit to deal with this report, with all the hundreds of thousands of words of evidence, and to prepare the ground for the Government to take action. On 1st November, a lady—an excellent lady, I am sure, although I do not know her—a Miss Peck, who has no previous connection with the gambling industry or with any aspects of gambling legislation, comes over from the Prison Commission and she, poor lady, is charged with the task of reading the evidence which has already been the subject of several Royal Commissions. Then, as nothing has been done by the previous Administration, nor
504
by the present Administration when they were in office, we are asked to wait for another year. I think that we ought to wait for another year. But I first want to say something to the Minister.
I understand there is a convention that an incoming Government do not see the papers of the previous Administration. So far as I am concerned, everything that I have written to Mr. Merlyn Rees and to Dr. Shirley Summerskill is available to the Minister, and, if it is to any purpose, I will take steps to go over the ground again and write to him. Any service that I can render, I will render in the same way as I did to a Conservative Minister of Agriculture when I went on the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, when he was Home Secretary. My fundamental belief is that Lord Butler's approach to the problem was basically right. If you have a levy for racing, it must be a levy which comes under the review of the Minister. This was spelled out in great detail on 14th December 1960. What was said by the Conservative Government on that date, I have certainly been a party to in the consultative role that I played as a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. I stood privately by what was said, I stood by it publicly and I stand by it today.
There are a number of problems which must be examined, and I come back again to the point with which I started. The Royal Commission say that their proposals are interlocking. You cannot deal with the Pool Competitions Act merely by saying, "Have another year". You have to deal with the complicated problem of lotteries. Here they have the services of the Gaming Board and the chairman of the Gaming Board, who had been a Permanent Secretary. If they have no confidence in them, then in whom, for goodness sake, do they have confidence? Go and talk to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, talk to the officials on the Gaming Board and, for goodness sake, listen to what they say. If I can be of any help in that or any other field, I have only to be asked, and I say now publicly that I have no objection to all the correspondence that I had with Mr. Merlyn Rees being made available to the present Minister.
But what you cannot do is what has been done. May I just draw the attention

505
of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to this simple fact: Will he look at the report of Sir Kenneth Peppiatt, who headed a committee which was set up by Lord Butler when he was introducing his gambling legislation? The demand was made by Members of your Lordships' House that some help should be given to racing. Paragraph 19 of that report states "We are not recommending a levy as a subsidy." They said: "We do not think it needs a subsidy. We are giving this money to help them do the job of keeping British racing in its preeminent world position". If you turn to the Royal Commission's report—this was in 1960—they say in paragraph 942 that if the racing industry is hopelessly addicted to subsidy it will mean collapse. In other words, racing is in exactly the same position as the seven undertakings which find themselves protected by the Pool Competitions Act, and something should be done about it. It cannot be done overnight.
But let me say something else. It has become the fashion among young men who are running racing today to attack as a fuddy-duddy Lord Crathorne. But there would have been no levy without him; and nobody did more to bring about the health of British racing than Lord Crathorne. He was a member of the Peppiatt Committee, he was a member of the Levy Board when I was chairman, and I couple his name with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany. No two men could have given greater service to British racing on the one hand and to the probity, integrity and efficiency of gambling legislation on the other; yet today we find ourselves in a tangle.
Perhaps I may put one simple proposition to your Lordships. Here I am probably being controversial. I do not think that essentially there is any great difference between the disciplines required of a Pavlova and those which are required of a footballer. Both of them have to be disciplined; both require disciplined control of their minds over their bodies; both have to be skilled athletes; both have to be physically fit; both are performing for great audiences. The same is true of the Pool Competitions Act. It is meeting a need of ordinary people. Support of the ballet of a Pavlova is respectable, so we have the Arts Council; but football, and all the sports in which
506
young people particularly are engaged, get no support from the Government. Again, therefore, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in the friendliest possible way, that he should read at least one paper which was submitted to the Royal Commission by another Government department, the Board of Customs and Excise. They recommend—it is a point of view which I hold but which many other people, certainly my own immediate associates in racing, do not hold —that the day of the levy is over; that what should now be given is a grant that is borne on a ministerial Vote and that it should be operated in the same way as the grant to the Arts Council is operated. That is the alternative. I do not believe that there can be any backsliding here in terms of giving a bucket of money to private individuals who have used their influence to ignore the very provisions which were written into the gaming legislation in order to secure that a Minister is responsible to Parliament for the way that the money is spent.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long, but this is not a fairy story. It is not something which happened, just like that. Nor is there any guarantee of a happy ending. What is wanted here is clear thinking and a little courage. I could be offensive and say that what is needed is "guts". But I am not going to use that expression, because the difference between the two sides is the difference between eleven-pence halfpenny and a shilling or, to put it another way, it is a dead heat between the head and the tail of the same penny.
I understand the difficulties, but the solution is not to be found in the Home Office, for it is not a department which operates in that way. The Home Office operates through the Prison Commission and through all sorts of agencies. We do not want the Home Office to try to run racing; it cannot even run itself. I had mightly little confidence in the Ministers of the last Administration over their handling of problems and I have mighty little confidence in the officials; but I have every confidence in Lord Allen and the Gaming Board. Upon that something can be built.
I hope very much that the present Administration, faced with innumerable difficulties and tremendous demands upon

507
its time, will wait for another year. That may not be sufficient, but at least it would be some evidence that the Administration wants to tackle the problem of lottery legislation. It is a national disgrace that millions and millions of pounds are being collected every week from the pockets of innocent people, who are indulging in what they think is a little bit of fun, when a Royal Commission says that the law is inadequate, that the operations are scandalous and that often there is plain dishonesty. The present Administration have their responsibilities, and so did the previous Administration. However, let us forget about that and try to put it right. There is a great deal of knowledge about the problem but it cannot be tackled by a special unit, consisting of one lady.
I shall not vote against this order, but the Government are under notice, and they are particularly under notice so far as racing is concerned. The proposal is that there should be a consultative council which is built up on co-operation and goodwill to do the very thing which Lord Butler spelled out in a debate which took place 19 years ago but about which nothing has been done. I wish that whoever is responsible in the Home Office—I hope that it is the Home Secretary himself—would tackle this tremendous task. So far as I am concerned, I shall forget about the past if the Government will do something about the future.
12.15 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his support of this order. I agree with the noble Lord that the time has certainly come when the position of the pool competitions, which are covered by this order, and of lotteries in general should be looked at. That is precisely what the Home Office is doing at present in considering the comments of the Royal Commission on Gambling.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for saying that he would be ready to make available his correspondence with the previous Secretary of State and, indeed, with previous Ministers in the Home Office. However, the convention is that I may see no correspondence from previous Governments. I very much regret that in this particular case I cannot
508
profit from reading the correspondence with which the noble Lord has favoured the department in which at the moment I am working.
Having heard this short debate, your Lordships may well say: But why should not seven organisations, which still benefit from the provisions of the 1971 Act and which will benefit if this order is agreed, become lotteries under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. The answer to that question was given when the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, particularly towards the end of his remarks, criticised the running of lotteries in this country. The fact of the matter is that in Chapter 12 of their report, the Royal Commission expressed great concern about the way in which lotteries are being run under the 1976 Act. Until the points of concern which have been raised by the Royal Commission can be fully considered, your Lordships will, I hope, take the view that it would be premature to force these seven pool competitions out of the scope of the 1971 Act and into the scope of the 1976 Act.
There is one final point which I feel that I ought to make to your Lordships. The Home Office has behaved absolutely properly in this matter. Comments on the Royal Commission's report from interested organisations did not finally have to come in until 29th March of this year, and they are now being considered. But it really is too early in the life of this Parliament to take decisions on these matters. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree this morning to the passage of this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OIL SUPPLIES
12.18 p.m.
Lord TANLAW Lord TANLAW rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure adequate and regular supplies of petrol, diesel and heating oil in the immediate future and over the next 12 months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I had hoped that it would be a mere formality this morning, bearing in mind the questions which were asked yesterday in another place. However, in view of the vagueness of the replies

509
given by the new Minister of Energy to the very pertinent questions which were raised by my right honourable friend Mr. David Steel, I feel that I must pursue these questions further with Her Majesty's Government in order to alleviate some of the concern which is being expressed in agriculture and industry and by the motoring organisations about regular supplies of fuel in the forthcoming months.
I want to express the deep concern that is felt by farmers—certainly it is felt by those in the South of Scotland, about whom I can speak with confidence, but no doubt the same concern is felt by farmers in other parts of the country—about the threat to diesel supplies. If I can explain why their concern should, in my view, take priority over the concern felt by other industries, it is simply because the crops will not wait. The crops have to be sown and the grass has to be cut; they will not wait for a change in the diesel supply position. The opportunity will be lost. For those of us in the South of Scotland, where we have had the hardest winter that I have ever experienced and also with an indifferent spring, the weather window is absolutely critical for farming operations within these next few weeks. We need more than assurances; we need at least some definite measures from Her Majesty's Government today, before Parliament goes into Recess. Perhaps I should remind the Government that the grass still grows during the Recess and the need to plant crops still remains, and therefore there is some uncertainty among the farmers as to whom they should apply if diesel shortages occur.
Before going further with the problems of the United Kingdom, it is worth mentioning the element of surprise that this question should have arisen at all. Industrial nations throughout the world appear to have been suddenly caught short by the change from a period of surplus less than 12 months ago which has now become one of shortages. The cause of the current world energy problems is not really one of supply but of consumption, so that there is an energy consumption crisis, which is real and it is now. Therefore there is an urgent need for all industrial nations to implement the 5 per cent. cutback in consumption advocated by the International Energy Agency and to implement practical energy
510
conservation programmes without any further delay.
How is it that this situation has arisen so quickly and without forewarning? The balance between world supply and world demand of oil is fine. The total world supply is 52·6 million barrels per day and consumption has been running at that level. With the cutback of 2 million barrels a day in Iran there is a shortfall of approximately 2 million barrels. The largest industrial nation, the United States of America, consumes, according to the IEA, 19·7 million barrels a day. This consumption is rising so I feel it is necessary that we, as a nation, and through the Common Market, should support President Carter's call for a cutback in consumption. I feel that he needs some support against his own Congress. It would appear that the United States Congressmen are unable to see the need for a conservation policy through the smog of bloated self-interest which seems to blot out all else in American politics today. They have made a sad decision and it is one which I am sure they will have to rectify in the not too distant future.
Let us look at the problem in terms of world energy consumption per head. The world average is 1·65 tonnes of oil equivalent; in Western Europe it is 3·11 tonnes of oil equivalent; in the United States of America it is 8·55 tonnes of oil equivalent, which gives a picture of the gross increase above the world average of a factor of eight in the consumption per head of energy in the United States. Until now there has been no need for citizens of the United States to cut back, but it must be remembered that every barrel of oil they consume from an imported source means less for the rest of the world and particularly for the developing world.
To return to this country, it would appear, from the answers given to date in another place, that Her Majesty's Government are not at this stage prepared to give a lead on this issue but prefer to be led by events. What is more, there seems to be no definite programme of energy conservation from the new Government and it would appear that the energy supply policy in this country is being left to the oil companies to resolve.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): Not at all, my Lords.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I do not think that is satisfactory. I heard the noble Earl opposite say, "Not at all", but if I interpreted correctly what the Minister said in another place he has passed the buck to the oil companies to ensure satisfactory supplies. I hope they will not rely on market forces and a sudden increase in prices to cut back on demand. If I may refer again to the agricultural industry, whatever the price, there is no option, but to buy diesel in order to keep the tractors running during the critical few weeks that lie ahead of us.
Today is not the time to do this but I hope at some later date to be able to discuss energy conservation policy in a debate and to try to extract from Her Majesty's Government information on the measures they are taking to satisfy the IEA recommendation for a 5 per cent. cutback in energy consumption. This does not apply just to this country but to all industrial nations throughout the world. This cannot be left for the months ahead. It is a matter of weeks because if the consumption is not cut back in the short term we shall be left with very serious long-term energy problems and world economic recession will follow inevitably.
To take our own case in this country, as we all know, the Central Electricity Generating Board is using oil to make electricity and it appears from the information they have given me that they have made some impressive cutbacks; from 4¼ million tonnes of oil they have cut back to 2¼ million tonnes for the summer months. That is their anticipated cutback in oil burn. The question I wish to ask the noble Earl is whether that is enough. Can there be a greater cutback than that? Secondly, what longer term measures are being taken to increase the coal burn, which I know has already been increased by 6 million tonnes? I am very pleased to hear that but in another context, as I and other noble Lords have said from these Benches, if there is to he a future in the coal industry it must lie with electricity generation. We should like to hear something of the immediate plans which the Government have in that direction.
512
Are we going to have another "Save it" campaign? It was very well intentioned, but I feel that there was no incentive to save energy. Exhortation is not enough; there must be some incentive to save and, when one comes back to the wider question of conservation, I hope that there may be a method whereby the pricing structure of energy could be made to encourage people to save by allowing a basic load at a very reasonable price guaranteed for 12 months ahead, with a steep increase in price if those loads are exceeded. I will not go into that further now but I want to hear that the Government are working towards an energy-efficient society. So far, no definite views have been put forward to encourage me to believe that they intend to make this one of their prime objectives in the near future.
I should also like to hear the Government's views on alternative energy strategies—something which I am personally closely connected with in the Parliamentary liaison group for alternative energy strategies. These things cannot be left much longer. This is an opportunity for the noble Earl to give us a hint of things to come but I hope there will be something more definite in the more precise questions which have been asked, not only today but also by my right honourable friend in another place yesterday. I personally feel that it is an act of bravado to terminate this Session of Parliament while these questions remain unanswered. All farmers would like a very clear definition as to where and to whom they should apply as well as how they should apply for immediate diesel supplies if there are shortages during the period which I outlined earlier.
My Lords, to conclude, being the last day before the Recess of this session, I think one might be allowed a slightly more whimsical note than usual. Some noble Lords have heard that NASA's space lab is about to fall back to earth. I think this will be in the month of June at about the time Parliament reassembles. Noble Lords may also have seen in the newspapers that there are about one million thoughtful Americans intending to keep it in orbit by counteracting the laws of gravity through mind power. In view of the fact that the Government appear to have no definite energy policy, I am speculating whether they are considering harnessing similar powers to

513
counteract the laws of supply and demand as they arise during the Recess in the hope that the shortfall in energy may be solved before Parliament reassembles.
12.32 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has put down this Unstarred Question on this very important matter, which I think it is vital that Parliament should debate before we go into Recess. I agree, if I may say so, with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said. I must first congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on his appointment as Minister of State for Employment. I am glad that the noble Earl will also act, as I understand as a spokesman for the Department of Energy, although I am sorry that there will be no actual departmental Minister in this House. This is, of course, no reflection on the noble Earl. Lord Gowrie, who indeed used to say the same sort of thing to me as an energy spokesman when he was in opposition. But then the last Labour Government had a much smaller team, although this did include an Energy Minister at one time. The new Government now number 20 noble Lords in this House, including seven Ministers of State and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. But, my Lords, in spite of this galaxy of rank and talent there is no departmental spokesman for what is basically one of the most important departments of all, since energy resources are surely fundamental to the future of any advanced country. Moreover, there is a great deal of technical knowledge and expertise on the Back Benches of your Lordships' House, as I found when I was the Government spokesman. I hope, therefore, that this omission will be rectified before long.
My Lords, after these general remarks, I should like now to turn briefly to the more specific subjects of this debate. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and to ask the Government what steps they are taking to deal with the present threat to our oil supplies resulting from the cut-back in Iranian exports and from the self-imposed restrictions on Saudi Arabian production. This is an opportunity, I think, to ask them about their general energy policy, if they have one. According to newspaper reports the Government are showing some complacency. I hope this is not
514
true, and we wish them well, although I must deplore that there is no mention of energy in the gracious Speech, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlow, said, the Government's replies yesterday in another place were rather vague.
It appears that petrol in some garages is already costing nearly £1 a gallon and that further rises are on the way. I must ask the noble Earl if it is proposed to offset this rise by cutting petrol VAT, or, on the contrary, will VAT, with excise duty, have to be further increased to offset the promised reductions in income tax. Perhaps the noble Earl will enlighten us. What also are the Government doing to encourage some self-restraint in consumption and some reduction in demand?
I see that according to the Commission's figures Britain has the best record in energy saving among all our EEC partners, but more may be required. What also will be the position over the problems of petrol pump conversion if petrol goes up to over £1 a gallon, since most pumps at present cannot manage prices of more than 99·9p? The price of oil in Rotterdam is now reported to be double the OPEC recommended price. Is it the Government's policy to support our French and Belgian partners in pressing for a price ceiling on the international market or do they prefer to see this left to market forces?
May I also ask the Government about their attitude to the suggestion by Sweden in the current ministerial meeting of the International Energy Agency for an emergency oil supply sharing scheme within the Agency. This would require us to increase our exports of North Sea crude to balance the fall in normal supplies, and could mean early Government measures to reduce demand. In the long term it is now clear that the consumption of oil in the Free World is growing faster than production, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, reminded us. Unless some action is taken soon it will not be possible to have even moderate industrial growth.
North Sea oil and our coal are, of course, very important in this critical situation. We are indeed most fortunate to be so richly endowed with these. When natural gas and North Sea oil, and indeed world oil supplies, run out in a few decades we

515
shall have to rely, apart from nuclear power, on our coal for conversion to synthetic liquid fuels. We have, luckily enough, coal under ground for 300 years' consumption at current extraction rates, and there is still more deeper down, as well as under the sea. The British coal industry is the only one in Europe with a strategy for expansion. The Labour Government agreed on a recommendation by the National Coal Board to provide up to £20 million for the development of coal gasification and liquefaction in the period to March 1983. The total spending on energy R and D by the public sector in 1977/78, when we were in office, was about £250 million. This is vitally important research, I submit, on which this country's future depends, and I hope it will not be reduced by the present Administration as part of their policy of reducing public expenditure, as this, in my view, would be extremely foolish and shortsighted.
I must also ask the noble Earl to confirm that the Energy Commission set up by the Labour Government a couple of years ago, which has a broadly based membership covering workers and management in the energy industries as well as consumer interests, will not be disbanded. Above all, I hope that the Government are going to respond to the call by Sir Derek Ezra, the NCB chairman, and Mr. Joe Gormley, the president of the miners' union, to back expansion in the coal industry and to endorse the previous Government's tripartite Plan for Coal. As Sir Derek said:
"If extra coal is to be available when the real energy shortage develops at the end of the century, the exploration, research and investment decisions need to be taken now".
I hope the Government will also note the constructive words of Mr. Gormley when he said the other day that the miners are prepared to work for a greater Britain, which would bring them greater security and higher living standards. Therefore, I trust that, unlike the last Conservative Government, the new Government will work with the miners and not against them.
I must ask the Government to confirm that the rather ominous words in the gracious Speech about denationalisation and the selling off of parts of the nationalised industries do not apply to
516
our coal industry. Such a policy, adopted for doctrinal and ideological reasons, would be the utmost folly, because in the long-term a great industry—such as the coal industry—must be run on national lines so that it can command the resources needed for investment in new mining capacity, and for the vital research to ensure that we have all the coal to meet our needs in the ever-gathering energy crisis.
12.41 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for raising this matter. I raised it myself on the debate on the gracious Speech. Today I shall not go into the policies of who does what to the coal industry, or anything like that. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can state in clear words—words which can be understood by people in the country—what will happen over the course of the next few months?
In the rural area where I live—and no doubt noble Lords are not surprised that I address myself to rural areas—we have reached a very serious situation. The farmer is not only short of fuel for his tractors and other equipment, but is not getting it. If he cannot obtain fuel to plough his fields or harrow them, or roll his grass, it is no good referring him to my noble friend's right honourable friend's statement made yesterday that we should approach this through:
"calm and careful policies of greater … efficiency, demand restraint and conservation".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/79; col. 1051.]
He has no fuel to conserve. He cannot restrain his crops from growing; when they are growing he cannot say, "Please do not grow any further because my combine harvester will not work for three weeks".
When the Government present their case they must explain to the people on the ground exactly where they stand. It is no good talking about people being able to obtain oil from Rotterdam. In fact, one of my friends has had to obtain oil from Rotterdam in order to finish his spring sowing and harrowing. As a result he has had to pay for his fuel 12p a gallon more than the proper price. He quite rightly said to me, "If this continues, we shall be going back to

517
wartime and will build up a nice black market". Please will the Government issue a statement which the people can understand to ensure that we do not reach a situation where a black market can start?—for once we get one, it will be extremely difficult to break.
I should also like my noble friend to pay attention to the people who live in rural areas, who have either no bus services or very minimal bus services, and have to travel five or six miles to the shops. It has now become uneconomic for tradesmen to deliver so these people have to collect the food for their small-holdings, which they are unable to store in the bulk quantities in which people are prepared to deliver to them. Such smallholders have to fetch those goods in their own transport. I know of one man who was told this week that he could have only £2 worth of petrol. What good is that to him? He has to collect the food for his animals on his small-holding; his wife's mother may be taken ill and have to go to hospital 35 or 40 miles away. He would have to get her there because there are no bus services in the area. What good is there in saying that to panic is to be chickenheaded'? There will not be any chickens, we will all have chicken heads! However, that does not allow him to do what he has to do. Therefore, it is essential that if the Government are to retain the goodwill of the country, which they have at this moment, they must convey to the people exactly what their day-to-day situation is, and not the fact that there is enough coal underground for 300 years. The people want to know where their petrol, diesel oil and fuel for their tractors will come from tomorrow. That is quite essential.
Yesterday in my area we saw cars going from Wolverhampton and Birmingham to the races. Yet a man came to me and said that he could only get £2 worth of petrol. He said, "How on earth am I going to get my wife's shopping, because she is sick?" When the Government can give the answer to that and convey it to the people, they will get the people's goodwill. But until they do that, I hope they will realise that they are slipping and sliding into a great deal of dissatisfaction and probably the start of a very had black market.
12.47 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support every word that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and others. However, I should like to make one point which so far no one has raised. There are certain areas in Scotland and Wales—and I think in parts of England too—where there are no railways, no buses and where only one form of transport can be used: namely, the motor car. Those areas must he looked at by any Government. I sympathise with the present Government in suddenly finding that this crisis has come upon us, because it is extremely difficult.
During the last war—and I live in an area where there are no railways—we were given extra coupons for petrol for living in an area where transport was so difficult. I do not suggest that rationing or anything of that kind should be introduced now, but there are parts of Scotland—and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, spoke of the Borders—which are 50 miles from any form of public transport. Every time I come to your Lordships' House I have to motor 50 miles, which entails a motor-car travelling 100 miles, to Carlisle, Berwick or Newcastle. Of course, I am only one, but I entirely endorse everything that has been said. I plead that those areas—and there are more in Scotland than in any other part of the country—which have no railways and where buses are non-existent should be considered, because we shall be completely marooned if there is a real petrol shortage.
12.49 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I ask for the forgiveness of the House for rising, not having put my name on the list of speakers. However, not only do I want to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, have said, but I want to ask the noble Earl to consider and give us an answer on one further point. As your Lordships know, I am the chairman of the Land Settlement Association. Our people of course operate a lot of glass. They grow horticultural crops—cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes, and that kind of thing. They are absolutely dependent on the supply of oil in order to heat their glass.

519
Fears have been expressed to me that, if there is a shortage of oil, which seems to be pretty certain, then priorities will have to be determined. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure me that, in those circumstances where priorities have to be established, the Government will make sure that the agricultural people (I agree with the other points, too), and in mycase the horticultural people, get a continuing supply. It would damage the country's interests if we could not go on producing the commodities we produce. It would certainly damage horticultural people, the large ones and the small ones. Mine are the small ones, and I think one should accept that there is a concern for them which ought to be understood and ought to be met.
12.52 p.m.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I too apologise for joining in this debate after not having put down my name. The Question refers to the next 12 months. I was encouraged to join in because the noble Lords, Lord Tanlaw and Lord Strabolgi, looked rather further, and I just want to say a brief word on that. Everybody knows that the world is running into an extremely serious position about energy and that the steps being taken at present are far from adequate. In general, you can deal with problems of this kind in only two ways: either by using the market mechanism, or by some form of planning, which in this case would be rationing. As it is an international problem it seems to me that an individual country which is willing to use rationing is likely to lose unless other countries are doing the same thing.
The point I want to commend to Her Majesty's Government is that a great deal that they have said indicates that they believe in the market system, and I hope that they will not forget in their consideration of these problems that over a longish period the price system enlists an enormous set of forces on your side, both in forcing reductions in consumption and in stimulating the work of finding substitutes, which we have to do. At the moment our only friends are the OPEC countries because they at least keep on putting up the price of oil—a thing which should have been done a
520
long time ago. We are in a lucky position, because what the world needs now—that oil should be made very expensive—happens at the moment to be a painless thing to us.
I would only close by saying how nice that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised this point, when one thinks that a very short time ago the Liberal Party in another place stopped the Government from a most desirable thing that they were trying to do, and that was to put up the tax on petrol. I commend to the Government, in accordance with their own principle, that they do not forget about the effect of the market system in bringing these great forces to work towards solving the problem.
12.54 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, it does of course take a Cross-Bencher with the experience and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, to pull a real Party political squib out of the bag to hurl at the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and so I will not get into this battle on the last point between the Liberal Party and the Cross-Benches. I would say, seriously, that it is of course entirely right and proper that noble Lords should express, as they have done, a great concern at the prospect of shortage of oil supplies both now and in the immediate future. I think that many of the remarks of concern and anxiety which we have heard this afternoon in your Lordships' House are in fact a reflection of a general world anxiety, and indeed an anxiety which is certainly—as I think my remarks will make clear—shared by the Government.
The loss of Iranian supplies at a time when world trade conditions were already difficult, as your Lordships are aware, and the consequent renewed pressure on prices, is extremely worrying for all countries, whether the developed nations or those many developing nations who are hoping to improve their own economic positions. The importance of oil as a current source of energy cannot be overstated; although much research has been devoted to the development of alternative energy sources—and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made mention of these—that we might try to investigate to replace those in which oil is at present in demand.

521
Despite the interesting debate which is taking place generally in energy fields about alternative sources, it seems to me that it would be silly not to say very definitely that there is going to be no short-term radical change in our dependence upon oil. I am all for the debate continuing, and as I learn my lessons in the energy field I shall certainly try to learn about alternative energy supplies. But I think the House will agree that we have to deal with the situation as we see it mainly in respect of oil.
It may be argued that despite the world shortage we, in the United Kingdom, are fortunately placed in that we have large offshore production and reserves; so large that we expect to be self-sufficient in oil by next year. Indeed, that is a stroke of good fortune; and since these are secure supplies under our own control, and since any increase in the price of oil must increase the value of our own production and reserves, to that extent of course we must count ourselves extremely lucky.
But, as noble Lords have pointed out, this is far from the whole story, and we cannot in any way afford to be complacent about recent developments. I think that three weeks after a change of Government—if indeed it is yet three weeks—is a little early to be accused of any complacency. There will be none on this issue from the Government, which surely, in the nature of things, takes a lot more time to develop.
Continued shortage of oil and real price increases must have a restrictive effect upon world trading conditions on which we depend, and upon the prospects of the developing nations as well as ourselves to achieve their economic aims. To a country such as ours, which is so greatly dependent upon world trading conditions for its own continued growth and prosperity, this prospect is one which we must do everything we can to improve. It is for that reason that we have joined with other signatories to the International Energy Agreement, and with other members of the European Community, in agreeing to reduce our internal use of oil and our imports from world markets. This action, wholeheartedly applied, will do more than anything else could to stabilise price by more nearly equating world demand with world supply.
522
May I just spell out what we are committed to trying to do. Within the European Economic Community we are committed to reducing United Kingdom demand by rather over 4½ million tonnes in 1979—a somewhat more rigorous reduction than that entailed by voluntary action to reduce demand by 5 per cent. within the countries of the International Energy Agreement. If we do succeed in this reduction in demand there is no reason to suppose that supply within the United Kingdom will be unable to meet the reduced demand in full.
But, as I said earlier, I do not wish to minimise the difficulty with which we shall be faced in attaining such a reduction. The scale of the reduction at which we are aiming is in fact greater than the overall reduction in world supplies. This it must be, of course, if it is to have a significant effect in discouraging movement to higher real prices. Yet in achieving this reduction we have still to aim at recovery within the United Kingdom from the present almost stagnant economic position—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made that point—and to get on to a path of economic growth. That is the only way in which we can hope to remedy the serious short-comings in our social provisions and in defence; and of bringing national living standards up to those of our continental neighbours.
Before going further I will deal briefly with some of the points put to me in the debate. We, of course, recognise the need for the Government to take the lead in getting the message across to all users of oil products that their use of oil must be reduced, and I shall say a little more about the implications of that shortly. At the moment we are trying to consider the best means by which to get this message across. I want to convey our sense of urgency, our sense of anxiety, about the situation, but I also want to convey, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and others who complained that we did not have an instant energy policy, as it were, that it takes quite a lot of looking at.
We all have experience, as readers of the newspapers, of the situation in, say, California or the Republic of Ireland and know that if you get the message across wrongly, people panic and there are great

523
bottlenecks in supply and demand, queues at petrol stations and the like, so we really want to get it right and spell out the real conditions, as I shall try to do. I am sure the House will agree, as suggested by Lord Tanlaw, that any campaign must be carefully thought out; we do not want to create panic when all that is needed is reasonable care and economy. Subject to this, we shall lose no unnecessary time in putting the general public fully into the picture.
Several noble Lords raised the question of the supply of diesel fuel to farmers. Farmers are, of course, heavily dependent on supplies of gas and oil diesel fuel for their sowing and harvesting programmes. They are also entirely dependent on the weather for getting on with such work. Allocations of oil based on the corresponding month of the previous year and because of the differences in weather, leave a farmer without adequate supplies just when he needs them, and noble Lords will be aware of that. That is obviously unacceptable to farmers. The Department of Energy has made this point forcefully to the oil industry, who recognise the problem; I can give that assurance. They have agreed to give special attention to the needs of farmers. This does not of course mean that there will be no problems at all or that farmers can altogether escape the problems which exist in energy supplies generally. But it means that they will not be left without supplies because of the unfortunately but necessarily arbitrary nature of the allocations system at present.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that the Department of Energy has dealt with a large number of cases of individual farmers who were worried about oil supplies. Although oil companies are reluctant to give assurances to any specific individual customer on future supplies, and this is naturally worrying to farmers, the Department knows of no case in which spring sowing or other essential agricultural or horticultural purposes have been delayed or prevented by lack of oil. Farmers who are in difficulty are advised by the Department to put their position in writing to their immediate supplier, but I would say to the House, knowing the great body of expertise we have in agricultural matters in this area, that if noble Lords know of bottlenecks or difficulties in individual cases,
524
perhaps they would write to me and, while I cannot promise anything, I will see what I can do about it.
Reference was made to no mention being made in the gracious Speech of energy policy and I wish to comment on the point made at the beginning of his remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, about our not having a Minister for Energy in this House. This is a problem we have all had to live with. I am feeling a slight glow of triumph because I was an agitator for many years in Opposition in the cause of having a full Treasury Minister in this House, and at least that has been achieved under the present Administration. It is a remarkable step forward, and we have some Ministers at senior level in economic Departments in this House, and that too is a step forward.
Of course no Minister involved in economic affairs—as I know already after even a few days at the Department of Employment—can isolate himself from energy questions. I do not know whether this will be of any assurance to the House because I am learning my lessons and I have just got to do as well as I can as fast as I can, but I shall take my position as energy spokesman extremely seriously. I have the advantage, though perhaps he might not welcome my saying so, of being a very old friend of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I shall bully him if he shows the slightest signs of neglect of the very great expertise that he knows all too well exists in this House. For instance, we have the noble Lords, Lord Balogh, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Kearton; we are not a House that can be taken lightly on energy issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is an old hand and I think he must have been teasing when he asked me poker-faced about changes in VAT. I do not mind sticking my neck out with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I am not going to anticipate Budget changes in the House of Lords of all places. However, what the noble Lord said will of course be taken into account. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, on the question of Rotterdam, that, as a commodity market, it supplies only 5 per cent. of our supplies, 95 per cent. being our own contractual arrangements, but I will look at what he

525
said and if it needs a reply, or if he feels it does, I shall be happy to research the matter with officials and write to him.
I do not want to minimise the difficulties we face. It is not an easy task. As Lord Strabolgi will know, one measure taken by the previous Administration was to obtain the agreement of the electricity generating boards to reduce oil burn in favour of increased coal burn. This is not of course without some economic cost, but it is not a cost so high as seriously to interfere with our overall economic objectives, and I believe we should look seriously at developments along those lines.
Nevertheless, we come back to the painful lesson that the one means of achieving demand restraint without any economic costs at all—perhaps even with economic benefits in the long run—is by economy in the use of oil, and I wish to spend the few minutes left to me talking about that. In spite of determined efforts within much of the public sector, and indeed in a great deal of the private sector, it is true to say that unnecessarily wasteful use of oil products persists. I do not think we are wasteful in the sense that America is, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the President is having considerable difficulty persuading Americans to cut their wastefulness, but nevertheless we are not wholly innocent here.
Every motorist, every householder and every industry should look at ways in which oil could be saved. It will be a rare case indeed if, on any given consumer carefully considering his use of oil, he cannot identify means of reducing his total use, even in some cases very considerably reducing it. Impressive reductions in fuel use have already been achieved by the Property Services Agency in the last few years by their specific attention to this aim. I would not pretend that this represents a considerable saving, but it represents something by way of giving a lead in the matter.
Under an initiative, which I acknowledge was introduced by the previous Administration, all authorities in the public sector are now being asked to concentrate on further savings. We have no intentions of going back on that and we might even strengthen the provisions that have been made. Local authorities
526
in the public sector have to report to us on the savings they achieve on a continuing basis. These economies in the public sector will themselves make a significant contribution to the reduction in demand we are aiming at, but they cannot be expected, even with the additional coal burn for electricity generation, to be sufficient to meet our full international commitments. For this we must look to the public more generally.
I must spell it out clearly and in simple language, as my noble friend Lord de Clifford urged me to do. It is, I am afraid, inevitable that the public generally will not get all the oil they need in the ensuing months. The oil coming on to the United Kingdom market from all sources is sufficient to meet only 96 to 97 per cent. of total demands. This need not cause any real problem if—but only if—consumers themselves take reasonable steps to economise in its use. Unless they do so, however, there will inevitably be continuing difficulties and internal price pressure. To try to meet this real situation, the oil companies in the United Kingdom have imposed informal allocation systems upon their customers and much of the debate today has been about some of the problems which the informal allocation systems are causing. The quantities of oil they allow to customers are calculated as a percentage of the quantities those customers took in a corresponding period of last year. In most cases it will be 100 per cent. of that quantity, but in the case of some companies and of some products it will be less than this.
The system of using a base period corresponding to the present is normally fair, and makes due allowance for seasonality of demand. In some cases, such as where a consumer's business has expanded, it clearly is not. In discussions between the Department of Energy and the Petroleum Industry Advisory Committee, the companies have agreed to consider representations from consumers who can show that the base period bears unduly hardly upon them. Of course there remain some problems. Some 15 per cent, of consumers were supplied by independent distributors, who customarily bought some of their supplies from the international market. As has been said, prices in that market have soared in recent months to twice or more their pre-crisis levels. As a result, traders have been unwilling, or

527
indeed unable, to buy in that market, and have had had to reduce inland deliveries according to such allocations as they received from the major oil companies. Their customers have accordingly been worried by considerable reductions in their normal supplies. In most cases they have been able to manage by securing additional supplies from elsewhere, but this must often be at higher prices more or less closely related to those obtaining in the international market—the Rotterdam market, if one is to use a shorthand term.
The Department of Energy has been active in piloting consumers through the oil companies' "appeals" procedure, interceding with oil companies where an appeal seems not to have been so carefully considered as it could have been, and suggesting alternative sources for oil when this was the only remedy. Clearly the fact that oil companies are allocating oil will in itself bring about some reduction in internal use, and therefore help us to meet to some degree our demand restraint objectives. But this effect is bound to be arbitrary as between customers of one company as against another, according to the individual company's capacity to supply. Our job in government is at present to keep a close watch on the effect of allocation schemes, since if they result in unacceptable difficulties for some consumers we shall have to consider means of bringing about a more equitable distribution. It would be wrong to anticipate doing that until we have firmer evidence that the allocation schemes are not working. I am grateful for the evidence of difficulties that has been brought before me today, and I shall investigate those difficulties.
If all consumers do what they can to reduce demands for oil, the result will be that all consumers, whoever their suppliers happen to be, will be able to get sufficient oil for their slightly reduced needs. Therefore, I most strongly hope and urge that all consumers take action to reduce their demands. Only a slight reduction, desirable in itself on both economy and price grounds, will be enough to bring about the effect we want. It would be a pity if, in default of this action by consumers, the Government were constrained to invoke the emergency powers of the 1976 Act and impose a Government allocation scheme or other compulsory
528
demand restraint measures. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Collison, that if we had to do that the needs of horticultural producers, as indeed of the agricultural sector generally, would of course be kept very high. Such a scheme, although it could correct the more severe cases of deprivation and be ostensibly fair, could not in fact be altogether fair, since it could not make allowance for the good fuel conservationist as against the consumer who has made little effort to economise. Finally, it would also entail a considerable administrative effort which could be wholly avoided—with better results, surely—if consumers will themselves make the effort to economise.
To sum up, my Lords, it is clear that the days of plentiful oil are past, and that, even though this nation is fortunately placed in having producing fields which will soon meet total demand, it behoves us, for our own self-interest as well as in the interests of the associations of nations to which we belong, to seek actively to economise in our use of oil without thereby injuring our productive capabilities. This is something which can certainly be done and we must make up our minds to do it.