Sitting of 25 May 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before we begin, I should like, with every respect, to ask for the mercy of brief questions and answers.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    SCOTLAND

      Glasgow East End Project
      Mr. Tom McMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a progress report on the Glasgow East End Project.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The organisational planning has been completed and the participating authorities—that is, the regional and district councils, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Special Housing Association-have agreed the priorities for early action. The first work on site, involving new house building and tenement rehabilitation, will start in June and other early projects will follow quickly.
      Mr. McMillan: Can the Minister assure the House that the new administration in Glasgow will not fold up that project? Does he recall that many thousands of people went without good houses because a previous administration changed, and is he aware that that danger still exists.
      Mr. Brown: I cannot give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance but, as far as I know, the new administration has made no declaration or attempt to change the policy on East End. I should certainly regret it if that happened. The new administration has given no indication that it will do other than support
      1374
      the constructive attempts of the previous administration in relation to East End.
      Mr. Selby: Is my hon. Friend aware—in spite of the answer he has just given—of the experience in 1968–70, when there was a similar council, that is, a Conservative one supported by the Scottish National Party, and when the number of houses built in Glasgow dropped to zero? Does he realise that it has taken us many years to recover from that situation?
      Mr. Brown: I am aware of the disastrous housing policies of the Tories when they were in power in Glasgow before, but it is only fair to point out that the housing problems in Glasgow have changed. There have been enormous improvements during the last 10 years, and we can only wait and see what the new administration will attempt to do.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that his hon. Friends have been talking rubbish, and will he indicate the total number of housing completions in Glasgow last year when there was a Labour council and a Labour Government?
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on rubbish. I must add, in the light of what I have just said, that nobody on the Government Benches is playing the numbers game. The quality and availability of the right houses in the right place are more important factors in framing a housing policy.

      Unemployed Persons
      Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has for reducing unemployment in Scotland.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I believe the economic policies that we are pursuing offer the best prospects of reducing unemployment. At the same time, we have recently announced the allocation of substantial additional resources to our programme of special employment and training measures designed to limit the impact of unemployment in the coming months. Such measures have already helped more than 54,000 people in Scotland.
      Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister realise that whatever measures the Government take they are pouring water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom? Has he any comment to make on the position of Beattie's biscuit factory in Glasgow, which is a subsidiary of Rank Hovis McDougall, because that factory is closing with a loss of 250 jobs? Why did the Government refuse to give temporary employment subsidy to keep that company going?
      Mr. MacKenzie: On the first part of that question, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be as encouraged as I have been by the fact that unemployment fell by 6,000 during the past month. One does not want to jump over the moon about such figures, but a cautious optimism is worth while.
      As for Beattie's, that factory has sustained a substantial loss for many years. I have seen the management there and the people concerned, but no application was made to the Scottish Office for temporary employment subsidy. Such an application would have been made to the Department of Employment. We were ready to give any assistance required, but any decision taken must be one of purely commercial judgment for the company itself.
      Mr. Sillars: Are the Government yet in a position to give an assessment of Strathclyde Regional Council's prediction that the West of Scotland will lose 70,000 jobs in manufacturing industry between 1976 and 1983?
      Mr. MacKenzie: We have already indicated our response to Strathclyde Regional Council. That is a rather pessimistic outlook, allowing for the fact that we have been doing rather better in the manufacturing sectors and exports. I hope that that will continue.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We appreciate the extension of special development area status to Arbroath, but does not the Minister consider that it should be extended to Brechin, which, as the Minister knows and has fairly acknowledged, will face difficult employment prospects in the months ahead?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern about Brechin. He and others have spoken to me about it. But no doubt he will also appreciate that
      1376
      with our limited resources we cannot make every area in the country a development area or a special development area. That would negate the fundamental aim of the regional policy and the initiatives that come from it. I hope that the visit that I have promised to Brechin and the work that has already been done will go some way to ameliorate the difficult conditions in that area.
      Mr. David Steel: What assessment has the Scottish Office made of the effect on unemployment of the withdrawal of the regional employment premium?
      Mr. MacKenzie: It has been explained to the right hon. Gentleman on numerous occasions that one of the reasons why we decided to withdraw the premium was so that we could spend the resources thereby released on other things, such as increasing the money available to the Scottish Development Agency and the work creation programme.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will there be a Government statement soon on the proposals now before the Scottish Development Department for a foundry in Central Scotland to serve not only the motor industry but other industries as well?
      Mr. MacKenzie: Any application for a foundry would come to the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend knows that foundry developments have taken place in two major plants in the past year. Any further announcement will be made in the normal way.
      Mr. Younger: Is it not deeply disappointing that after three years of Socialist administration we have the highest ever level of unemployment and no improvement in the seasonal figure for the latest month? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is the view of almost all commentators that this situation is due to the Government's policy of knocking the stuffing out of British industry and preventing it from providing more jobs in Scotland? Will he pay some attention to this point?
      Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that most commentators on both sides of industry agree that we are in the midst of an international recession and that conditions in the United Kingdom are little different from those in other parts of the world.

      1377
      The measures that we have put forward recently to improve employment prospects in Scotland, including our proposals for British Leyland, Chrysler and the Scottish Development Agency, have not been supported by the Opposition. Indeed, there has been total opposition from the Conservatives to the initiatives that the Government have taken.

      A29, A929/A94 (Detrunking)
      Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his decision on the proposals to detrunk route A92 from Dundee to Stonehaven and to trunk routes A929/A94 from Dundee to Forfar and Stonehaven; and if he will make a statement.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The City of Dundee District Council has objected to the order and consequently a public local inquiry is being arranged in accordance with the statutory requirements. Unless the objection is withdrawn, my right hon. Friend cannot reach a decision until he has considered the report of the inquiry.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are still a number of improvements to carry out on the A92, the current trunk road, including the provision of the Montrose relief road? Can he give an assurance that if the detrunking scheme goes ahead—and the Tayside Regional Council has given its approval—the proposal will be supported and helped as soon as possible?
      Mr. McElhone: It will be for the Tayside Regional Council to maintain the road in a suitable condition if it is detrunked. I have no plans for major improvements of this road in the short term.
      Mr. Welsh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his plans will put extra pressure on the already inadequate Dundee-Arbroath road, especially at the village of Muirdrum, which is an accident black spot where three children under the age of 10 have been knocked down in the past three years? May I convey to him the anger felt by the villagers that no improvements are planned and that the bypass, which has been promised since the last war, is still no nearer?
      Mr. McElhone: This may be a matter for the local public inquiry if the Dundee District Council does not withdraw its objection. My noble Friend who looks after day-to-day matters concerning roads will be discussing this problem with the district council.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

      Fines
      Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of fines imposed in Scottish courts which has been written off as irrecoverable debts since the introduction of payments of fines by instalments; and if he will make a statement.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Since 1971, when the Scottish Courts Administration was set up, the total amount of fines which has been written off in the sheriff courts as irrecoverable three years after their imposition is £88,424. The total amount of fines imposed during that period was nearly £11½million. The amount written off, therefore, represents less than 1 per cent. of this figure. Corresponding information about burgh and justice of the peace courts, and the district courts that replaced them on 16th May 1975, is not available.
      Mr. Dempsey: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if figures from other courts were available and were added to the figures that he has quoted, they would produce a substantial sum of money? Does this not indicate that hooligans, ruffians, thugs and other undesirables are getting off scot-free after committing offences against society and decent people? Is it not about time that we examined alternative means of making guilty persons pay?
      Mr. Ewing: No one claims a monopoly of concern for law enforcement. We are all deeply concerned about it, and that includes concern about fines enforcement. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the courts, to which no information is available, have only a limited ability to apply fines, so even if the information were available it would not produce the result that my hon. Friend forecasts.

      1379
      The subject of fines enforcement was considered by the Scottish Council on Crime and the Thompson Committee. We are looking at it in our consideration of possible legislative measures on criminal procedure.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the largest irrecoverable debt that he owes in Scotland is to the police force, which brings the criminals to justice? Is he not greatly concerned about reports of very low morale and the number of resignations from the police force in Scotland?
      Mr. Ewing: I can claim with some justification and pride that no junior Minister has given more time and attention to the needs and requests of the police in Scotland than I. I have worked hard over the past three years to establish the good relationship that the Government have with the Scottish Police Federation. I see no evidence of low morale. Too many people are trying to talk down the police force. The police do not enjoy that, and all the evidence is that the morale of the police in Scotland is high.

      Kessock Bridge
      Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotand what is the latest estimate of the time scale in the construction of the Kessock Bridge; and if he will make his promised statement.
      Mr. McElhone: I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on 28th April.
      Mr. Gray: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that he had something to add? Will he confirm or deny that the tenders that have been received for the Kessock Bridge two years after they were originally asked for appear to be £10 million lower than the original offers? Does this not indicate a gross lack of management by his Department of the criteria on which it asked for offers originally?
      Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a lot of nonsense. He said at a previous Question Time that this matter was decided in 1971 and he knows which party was in power then. In the three years between 1971 and 1974 the Government of the day did nothing. We
      1380
      have gone as far as getting tenders, and we expect to choose a contractor once we have considered the tenders in great detail, possibly in about two months' time.
      Mr. Carmichael: Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the design of the bridge is more aesthetically pleasing than was the bridge built at Ballachulish?
      Mr. McElhone: It is recognised that previous tenders and designs were unacceptable. We now have positive tenders and they are being examined as quickly as possible. I cannot comment on the aesthetic quality of designs. I think that the desire of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and many others in the area is to get the bridge started as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Gray: In view of the totally inadequate reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

      South Angus
      Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to South Angus.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
      Mr. Welsh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the gallant fight by local parents who wish to retain the Panbride Primary School as the rural primary school? Is he aware that the school is being closed because of the meanness of the pathetic Tory-controlled regional council in what is purely an accountancy exercise? When does the hon. Gentleman expect to make an announcement about the school?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I can agree with one comment—Tory authorities are mean. The problem raised by the hon. Member is one that must be dealt with initially by the regional authorities. If the hon. Member asks a specific Question about that, I shall be happy to deal with it.
      Mr. Lipton: If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ever proposes to pay a visit to Angus, will he give a solemn undertaking that there will be no command broadcast on Scottish television to celebrate his action?
      Mr. MacKenzie: As I have said, my right hon. Friend has at present no plans

      1381
      to visit South Angus. If he had, I doubt whether he would be put on a Royal Command show. I understand that the Scottish National Party is holding its conference this weekend. I am sure that if my hon. Friend watches that he will find it highly entertaining.

      Glasgow, Springburn
      Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit the Glasgow, Springburn, constituency.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
      Mr. Buchanan: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that that reply will be regarded as disappointing in my constituency. Is he aware that if he, or any of his colleagues, visited Springburn he would find some of the best industrial and housing sites in the West of Scotland? In view of the limits imposed on public expenditure, will my hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage investment from other sources to allow redevelopment of Springburn to proceed as planned?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I visit Springburn every weekend. My mother-in-law lives there and I visit her regularly. I am conscious of the problems of the Spring-burn area—not in connection with my mother-in-law, but the industrial difficulties that my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Scottish Development Agency has made substantial progress at Cowlairs, for example. We shall be happy to do all we can to encourage further industrial development.
      Mr. Craigen: Notwithstanding his mother-in-law's blandishments, will my hon. Friend accept that his recent visit to Hugh Smith (Glasgow) Ltd. was welcome? Can he give an assurance that he will have early discussions with the Scottish Development Agency about the growing demand for small factories of between 2,000 and 5,000 sq. ft.?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about my recent visit to his constituency. We are in constant discussion with the Scottish Development Agency about a variety of factors. The provision of small manufacturing and service units, for which there is a demand, is being borne in mind by the Agency.

      Football Match (Chile)
      Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests from organisations he has received in a recent period concerning the forthcoming football match in Chile, in which a representative Scottish team may participate at Santiago Stadium.
      Mr. McElhone: Since December 1976, when the Scottish Football Association announced the details of the South American tour, my right hon. Friend has received representations from 29 organisations expressing concern about the proposed match in the Santiago Stadium.
      Mr. Bidwell: May I assure my hon. Friend that my English and non-English constituents, of whom there are many, have nothing but the most warm-hearted appreciation of the historic record of the Scottish people in their dedication to the principles of democracy, human freedom and liberty? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is much dismay that the Scottish Football Association has not announced that it is to call off plans to stage a football match in this blood soaked Santiago Stadium? Will my hon. Friend press the Football Association to call off the match? Is he aware that some trade unionists, including many in the trade union that I represent, are planning to do their level best to ensure that the match does not take place and that the football team does not travel?
      Mr. McElhone: I am grateful for those kind comments about the Scottish people by my English colleague. But I must tell him that the Government cannot interfere in sporting affairs. I have expressed my deep concern to the SFA about the proposed match. I hope that even at this eleventh hour it will reconsider its proposal to play at the stadium.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable support in Scotland for the SFA from people who do not necessarily support the Government of Chile but who are sickened by the hypocrisy of the Labour Party and Left-wing Members who never seem to complain when Scottish teams and others play Communist dictatorships, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, which in some cases are soaked in blood? Will the Minister dissociate himself from that

      1383
      hypocritical attitude which adopts double standards?
      Mr. McElhone: Not for the first time, the hon. Member talks about hypocrisy and double standards. But he knows that from time to time I have called him the ace of double standards. My constituency is next to his. When one hears him speaking of the Pakistani population in Glasgow and one knows his attitude towards race, Rhodesia and other questions, one can understand what hypocrisy means.
      I have made my answer clear. I sit on a working party with the SFA. I have made it known, although I have deep respect for the officials of the SFA, that I deeply regret their misjudgment in deciding to accept an invitation to play in this stadium, where there have been some terrible incidents. I hope that there will be a change of attitude and that the match will not go ahead.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot tell the Scottish Football Association what it must do. However, could he ask the association at least to take into account the feelings of the Scottish footballers? Does he agree that if they were given the facts, they might have some say in what is to happen about the proposed tour?
      Mr. McElhone: I must be frank and honest with my hon. Friend. I have to tell him that a poll organised by the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association resulted in 70 per cent. of the membership saying "Yes" to the game in Chile. I must be fair and honest about that. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps the players did not get all the facts of the situation. I am still hoping—and I repeat this—that the SFA will reconsider the decision to play in the Santiago Stadium.
      Mr. Galbraith: Would it not be better if politicians stuck to politics and allowed sportsmen to get on with the game?
      Mr. McElhone: Sometimes when I see the hon. Member's antics I do not know whether he is a sportsman or a politician. I do not intend to change my attitude. I do not wish to repeat what I have said.
      Mr. Buchan: I thank my hon. Friend for the strong statement of disapproval that he has made today and previously. I
      1384
      also thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Is it not the case that the SFA asked for a judgment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before going ahead and that that judgment was given against the match? Is it not shameful that the SFA should ignore the wishes of the Government and the people?
      May I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that when so-called Left-wingers protest against oppression, bloodshed and tryanny they do so irrespective of the régime concerned and whether it is in the East or the West? There is blood on the ground of the stadium upon which the hon. Member is asking our young Scottish football players to perform.
      Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend has played a notable part in the campaign. He is correct about the Foreign Office and its advice. I can only repeat that I hope that the SFA will still change its mind, even at this eleventh hour.
      Mr. Younger: Does the Minister ever express disapproval of Scottish football teams playing behind the Iron Curtain, where there is a universal denial of human rights?
      Mr. McElhone: I think that the hon. Member does not follow football as much as some of us do. He may well remember the courageous stand by the Glasgow Celtic Football Club, a stand which most of us on the Government side of the House supported. I say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that I have taken a stand against Russia concerning the Jews and I have expressed my disapproval in writing and in speeches. It is not a one-sided stand as far as I am concerned.

      Council House Sales
      Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has had from housing authorities to sell council houses since October 1974; how many of these applications have been granted; and what was the average time taken by his Department to give substantive replies to these applications.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Since July 1974, when general consent was withdrawn, until 30th April 1977, 565 applications were received and 330 granted. Elapsed

      1385
      time between proposals and replies varied between two and 10 weeks, according to the form of the proposals and the complexities which they raised.
      Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that in the recent district elections Scotland showed perfectly clearly that it felt that people ought to have a right to buy the home in which they live? Will he assure the House that it will be no part of the present Government's policy to frustrate the legitimate aims of properly elected councils in this matter?
      Mr. Brown: I think that it is stretching it a bit to suggest that that was the only issue, or, indeed, the main issue, that inflenced people's voting patterns in the recent district elections. We shall be looking at this topic in the context of any possible changes that might follow the review of housing policy that will be dealt with in our Green Paper. There will be adequate time to discuss future housing plans, but I can give an assurance now that there will be no blanket approval for the indiscriminate wholesale selling of council houses.
      Mr. Small: Does my hon. Friend know of any man who has honey on his hands and does not want to lick it off at the earliest possible moment? My response to the style of the Question is that I anticipate a wholesale selling of houses in Drumchapel, Castlemilk and Easter house.
      Mr. Brown: If I understand my hon. Friend's question, I think that what he was asking was whether there is any evidence, in the three largest housing schemes in Scotland, of a widespread demand to buy houses. The answer is a definite "No".
      Mr. Watt: We have all heard of inflation, but does the hon. Gentleman regard it as reasonable that the price of a local authority house that was offered for sale at £5,800 in 1974 should have risen now to £10,000?
      Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wasting Question Time. [Interruption.] We are now dealing with Question No. 10. The hon. Gentleman is wasting Question Time when he asks me a hypothetical question about a house about which I have no knowledge.

      Common Agricultural Policy
      Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates of the fall in production in agriculture have been made owing to the CAP prices recently announced.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The decisions on farm support prices and related arrangements assure our farmers of a fair return for their labours and should encourage them to produce more food at prices the consumer can afford.
      Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that that is not my experience from talking to at least my local farmers? They are now much concerned about the future, because costs in farming are rapidly overhauling whatever increase there is in prices. There is grave concern about the future, which will undoubtedly end in a fall in production. Will the Minister continue the efforts in Brussels to get some amendments to the CAP, so that these factors are taken into account?
      Mr. Brown: I do not think that the future of agriculture depends entirely on what happens in Brussels, although obviously that plays a large part in influencing the future of the industry. I have confidence in the industry. It is too important an industry for any Government to disregard its contribution. However, what I have noticed is that sometimes farmers tell one things that are slightly different from the accounts that they show at the end of the year.
      Mr. Sillars: Given the state of consumers and given the state of farmers—and they are both in a bad state—is it not the situation that neither can afford a continuation of the CAP?
      Mr. Brown: The farmers are not in a bad state. By exaggeration the hon. Gentleman does no credit to the genuine problems that face farmers. It is equally untrue to suggest that the rise in prices over the past six months has been entirely due to the CAP. In fact, the products covered by the CAP represent a very small proportion of the retail price index for food.
      Mr. Welsh: If the Minister is so happy with Scottish agriculture at present, will

      1387
      he say which sectors of Scottish agriculture are up to the target set in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" and which are not? Is he aware of the growing financial discrepancy between returns for crops and returns for livestock? Is he satisfied with these trends?
      Mr. Brown: No. I am certainly concerned about the fall in production. Given reasonable circumstances this year, I think that we should see improvements. Obviously, when there is a fall in production we must make every effort in the sectors where that is evident—though it is not as significant or as widespread in all sections of the industry. However, certainly I am disappointed. I hope that we shall get back on target this year and in succeeding years.
      Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that among farmers in the Kilmarnock area there is much more concern about the savage increases in rents by the local landowner, Kilmarnock Estates, owned by Lord Howard de Walden, than there is about the CAP prices? There is a limit to what we can do about the CAP, but surely we can do something about these rent increases at home.
      Mr. Brown: I quite agree. My right hon. Friend highlights one of the indicators that suggest that there is still a large degree of confidence in agriculture, such as the applications for capital grants for replacement stock, and there is no shortage of applicants when any farm becomes vacant.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did the hon. Gentleman say that he thought that prices reflected a fair return to producers? If so, will he enlarge upon that statement and relate that to the prices being paid to pig producers?
      Mr. Brown: I do not remember what I said about that. I do not think that what I said was said in the way in which the hon. Gentleman put it.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Tell us what it was.
      Mr. Brown: I recognise, frankly, that pig production is the one section of the industry that is going through an extremely difficult situation at present. As
      1388
      the hon. Gentleman knows—because he was present here yesterday—a statement will be made this week, or the House will be informed by my right hon. Friend, of what action is being taken through the efforts of my right hon. Friend and Commissioner Gundelach.

      Bridge of Earn
      Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Bridge of Earn.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
      Mr. Crawford: Is the rundown of the Bridge of Earn Hospital symptomatic of the general Scottish Office thinking that small hospitals serving local communities should be closed? If that is so, does the Minister agree that to phase out small hospitals serving local communities is a scandalous and retrograde step?
      Mr. MacKenzie: Certainly it is not the policy of the Scottish Office to phase out small hospitals just because they happen to be small hospitals. As I understand it, an overall plan for health services in the Tayside area has envisaged the eventual replacement of the Bridge of Earn Hospital by a new district general hospital at Perth, which we think will serve a wider area.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious worry in Tayside, not only in Bridge of Earn but in Brechin, about Stracathro Hospital in particular, that the building and development of Nine Wells Hospital, in Dundee, is causing excessive centralisation and leading to lengthening waiting lists for patients in a large district, and is causing people to think that the hospital board and the Government are more concerned with statistics and less concerned with individuals, as patients, who have to be treated as human beings?
      Mr. MacKenzie: It is the policy that all patients should certainly be treated as human beings and, indeed, cared for appropriately. In regard to the whole question of centralisation and the hospital at Dundee, if my memory serves me rightly, that was not one of the initiatives taken by the present Government, or by an Administration of this colour of days

      1389
      past. However, the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my reply to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) a few moments ago, when I said that plans are now afoot for a hospital at Perth, which indicate that not all the hospital facilities are to be centred in the Dundee area.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: One must consider, of course, that it is very important that patients should be looked upon and treated as human beings, but it is also very important that patients should have the best treatment that is available. That treatment, with the highest scientific and technological advance, can be provided only in a place that has a large catchment area, otherwise the skills are not available. Nice as cottage hospitals may be from the romantic point of view, and though they have a part to play, they cannot take the place of hospitals to which the skills are drawn if the area is a large catchment area.
      Mr. MacKenzie: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It is right that there is a place for small hospitals, but I think that we all understand that a concentration of skills is extremely valuable for those who have serious illnesses.
      Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it was while the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) was at the Scottish Office that Nine Wells was started upon—
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not true.
      Mr. William Ross:—and the first tenders were taken in? Does my hon. Friend agree that all the facts about centralisation were known when the Tory Government started on the project?
      Mr. MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend backs up what I said earlier. What my right hon. Friend has just said is my recollection of what happened some years ago.

      Geriatric Patients
      Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the continued use of older non-purpose built buildings as old folk's homes and geriatric hospitals.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Each case must be considered on its merits, taking account of
      1390
      the condition and location of the building, the availability of finance for new buildings, and other priorities. These are matters for the local authority or health board and where my right hon. Friend's approval is necessary in respect of the proposed closure of a hospital in an old building he would take the same factors into account. Generally, however, a purpose-designed home or geriatric hospital can provide better and safer conditions for both patients and staff.
      Mr. Johnston: Does the Minister agree that there might be some case for establishing some guidelines? It seems that the better facilities and greater safety produced by closing an older building and spending a lot of money on a new building result in a margin of difference not all that great. Sometimes that margin does not justify the expenditure of limited resources that can be used in other and more productive ways.
      Mr. Ewing: One of the difficulties is that when an old building has to be brought up to standard to meet fire safety regulations and all the other relevant standards the cost involved is quite substantial. The cost for one hospital that I have in mind would be between £160,000 and £170,000. We have to measure whether it is worth spending that sort of money when for about £350,000 we can get a purpose-built unit with 30 beds, which would obviously last a great deal longer. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. His comments will be given consideration in any decision that we have to make.

      Economic Situation
      Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects in Scotland.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: As in the United Kingdom as a whole, economic growth in Scotland is expected to be concentrated in manufacturing industry with exports and investment providing the main impetus. It is therefore encouraging to note that the April CBI survey for Scotland showed a sharp improvement in investment intentions from January, and also a buoyant export prospect.
      Mr. Taylor: When does the Minister expect seasonally adjusted unemployment

      1391
      to improve? Will he take into account some of the island areas, where the economies are being severely eroded by recent increases in freight costs? On a more topical note, it is likely that power supplies in Scotland for industry and domestic users will be disrupted because of the present strikes.
      Mr. MacKenzie: The economies of the Islands were considered by the House not so many weeks ago when we discussed the charges of the Scottish Transport Group. In discussing these charges it is important to bear in mind the contribution that the Government have made and the consideration that the Scottish Transport Group gave to the carrying of freight to the Islands. It is also important to remember the substantial contribution that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is making in the Highlands and Islands and the number of important initiatives that it has announced over the past few years.
      It would be wrong for me to make any public comment about the dispute now taking place. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that the Government are conscious of the problem, as are the agencies involved in bringing the dispute to a successful conclusion.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economy in Aberdeen is buoyant because of oil-related industry, but that there is a structural decline in non-oil-related industry in Aberdeen and the surrounding areas? Is my hon. Friend aware that he will come under increasing pressure to change his mind and to keep Aberdeen a development area? In the meantime, will he give an assurance that any application for assistance that comes forward will be acted upon speedily and that there will be no delay?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I know how disappointed my hon. Friend was about our decision. However, I hope that he will appreciate that if we were to make every area within the country a development area, or a special development area, such status would be of no value. We decided to downgrade Aberdeen in the hope that by so doing we should be able to upgrade, for example, Dundee, Cumnock, Arbroath and Kilbirnie. Aberdeen still
      1392
      enjoys the considerable benefits that flow from intermediate status. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that any application that comes to me for selective financial assistance will be considered quickly and favourably.
      Mr. Crawford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a strong currency is to be preferred to a weak currency in terms of economic growth? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the economic growth of Scotland would be better promoted by a strong Scots pound and a self-governing Scotland than by being tied to the weak United Kingdom pound?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I have heard this notion floated by the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions and I have heard it quoted by a number of his hon. Friends. With great respect, I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as an expert on banking matters. I have listened with considerable care to the attitude of the Scottish banks. To put not too fine a point on it, they regard the hon. Gentleman's essays into this area as a load of rubbish.
      Mr. Buchan: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, far from the hon. Gentleman being regarded as a financial expert, the banks and every other financial institution regard the hon. Gentleman's views with contempt? They hailed as proof of their case the most recent publication entitled "Scotland 1980", which, they claim, has blown a complete hole in the SNP's case.
      To revert to more serious matters, is my hon. Friend aware that there is still great anxiety in my area about the future of Drax B? Now that the promise has been given by the Prime Minister that the order for the Drax B power station will take place, will my hon. Friend stress to my right hon. Friend that it is speed that is now required if we are to avoid any lay-offs?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I know of my hon. Friend's concern about Drax B. He has come with other to see me about it on a number of occasions during the past few months. I can assure him that the Government are giving it the speediest consideration. I think that my hon. Friend knows that there are difficulties. However, we still hope to make an announcement as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Watt: When will the Government take a lesson from Norway and insist that a decent percentage of oil-related jobs and orders come to Scottish manufacturers?
      Mr. MacKenzie: There are already between 55,000 and 65,000 people employed in Scotland, either directly or indirectly, in the exploration and exploitation of the oil in the North Sea. In Glasgow, which, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, is in Scotland, we have the Offshore Supplies Office, which indicates to all concerned the advantages of using Scottish firms wherever possible.
      Mr. Dalyell: Are we to understand from the answer to Question No. 2 that the proposals and discussions on the foundry in Central Scotland have not reached Ministers' desks and have not been discussed by Ministers?
      Mr. MacKenzie: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, I shall be happy to consider it if he writes to me or tables a Question.

      Royal Hospital for Sick Children
      Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to publish the results of his inquiries into the construction deficiencies at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children; and if he will ensure full public disclosure of these deficiencies.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Substantial progress has been made in establishing the causes of the various building defects which have come to light at this hospital. These investigations, which are being carried out by the Greater Glasgow Health Board with the help of independent consultants, will continue concurrently with the extensive remedial works which have still to be undertaken and for which the relevant tender documents are now being instructed or are in course of preparation.
      Since it is certain that the defects will be the subject of arbitration or litigation, it would be inappropriate to publish at this juncture the results of the board's investigations to date.
      Mr. Carmichael: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now over seven months since he gave me almost the same reply? The building work at this hospital is an absolute disgrace and brings no credit to the building industry, from the
      1394
      youngest apprentice to the most senior architect and engineer. How long does the sub judice rule keep facts such as these from the public, who are entitled to know?
      Mr. Ewing: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the time that has been taken to resolve this matter. In the past week I have given the issue the closest possible consideration. In view of the possibility of the matter going to litigation, it is essential that the Greater Glasgow Health Board establishes the facts to the best of its ability to strengthen its case when the time comes.
      Mr. Carmichael: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

      SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
      Mr. Grayasked the Lord Advocate when he proposes to meet the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I have been asked to reply.
      My right hon. and learned Friend met the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission on 28th April of this year. I understand that he expects to meet the chairman and the other members of the Commission early in July.
      Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for answering this Question. The Lord Advocate did me the courtesy of advising me that he had to be in Edinburgh today, and I accept the situation. When the next meeting takes place, will the Lord Advocate ask the chairman whether he is satisfied with the way in which the law is at present operating regarding the information that has to be disclosed by companies that are registered outwith the United Kingdom when they take an active part in land transactions within the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the considerable concern in my constituency, where a sandbank off Easter Ross has appreciated in value by no less than 1,200 per cent. in 14 months—the value rising from £50,000 to £600,000—at a time when it seems almost impossible to detemine who controls the companies in question?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but I do not think that this is a matter to be discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend when he meets the Chairman of the Law Commission. It falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman cares to pursue the matter with me, I shall be happy to answer the question.
      Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister ask the Lord Advocate, when he next meets the Chairman of the Law Commission, to discuss the effects of the law of libel as it impinges on distributors of magazines? Although certain safeguards have been introduced into the law, it still seems that distributors may be liable for libels that they could not detect. Will he look into that matter again?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I shall pass on that point to the Lord Advocate.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a little surprising that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should express concern about what is a perfectly legitimate and integral part of capitalist land speculation? Since the Minister has said that the matter is really one for the Secretary of State rather than the Lord Advocate, will he take the obvious remedy and nationalise the land, thus putting an end to this kind of speculation?
      Mr. MacKenzie: We have no immediate plans to nationalise the land.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Minister ask the Lord Advocate to put on the agenda of the Law Commission the newly-developing question of the jurisdiction of Scots law on North Sea oil development contracts, bearing in mind that it appears that some companies—even those controlled by the Government, or at least with a Government interest—are opting out of Scots law jurisdiction? Could not that be a matter that the Lord Advocate would wish the Law Commission to look at?
      Mr. MacKenzie: Without prior notice of that question it is very difficult for me to give a direct reply. However, I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister reconsider his reply to our hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about the public ownership of land? Would that not be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of Lord Howard de Walden, who was mentioned by our right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and whose favourite slogan at the last election was "It's Scotland's soil"? Is that not precisely the problem—that it is not Scotland's soil?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I do not think that I can change the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

    SCOTLAND

      Roads
      Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from private owners of housing property urging him to advise regional councils' highway authorities to bring some of the older roads in such housing areas into the programme of roads and have them added to the regional list of highways.
      Mr. McElhone: None. My right hon. Friend is not aware that this is a problem causing general concern.
      Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some of the streets or roads that I have in mind, not one of the original owners is in possession? Is he also aware that the regional road authorities expect the present owners to bring their roads up to regulation standards? This cannot be done unless they get on to the list of highways. Since that would also mean great cost—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—for groups of owners, such people cannot bear the burden. Will he bring in some form of road improvement scheme?
      Mr. McElhone: I have a certain sympathy with my hon. Friend's views, but only the regional council can assess the situation properly. It would be wrong for the Secretary of State to intervene in such local matters.

      Lossiemouth
      Mrs. Winifred Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Lossiemouth.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
      Mrs. Ewing: Is that not a pity, considering that Lossiemouth was the home of a famous Labour Prime Minister, whose daughter, who votes for the Labour Party, still lives there? Is the Minister aware that Lossiemouth fishermen were part of the contingent that visited Brussels, dedicated to the principle that without a 50-mile exclusive limit Lossiemouth would become a ghost town? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. Although the right to veto on the EEC fishing policy was given away by the Conservative Party and not renegotiated by his own party, does the Minister not consider that the time has come to threaten a right of veto on some other matter if we do not get a 50-mile limit for our fishemen?
      Mr. MacKenzie: If my right hon. Friend visited all the places that he is asked to visit these days, he would never be able to come to the House at all. [Interruption.] I know that some Opposition Members would like that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Stale who deals with fishing matters is here and will have noted what the hon. Lady has said. The Government's position on this question has been stated clearly on numerous occasions both by the Secretary of State for Scotland and by the Minister of Agriculture. I have heard about the demonstration last week and the impact made by some of the Scottish representatives.
      Mr. Younger: Will the Minister encourage his right hon. Friend to spend some of the Whitsun Recess visiting Lossiemouth and other centres of the fishing industry? Is he aware that every party in the House supports the stand that the Government are taking over the common fisheries policy? Would it not therefore be valuable if the Secretary of State went around the fishing communities so as to ensure that every possible argument is presented at the next meeting, and so that our friends in Europe will come to see the exclusive control of our own 50-mile limits as an essential national interest?
      Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister of Agriculture told the House last week that he would again be meeting Fisheries Ministers on 27th June. During the recess my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be visiting
      1398
      a number of fishing areas and having discussions with these people. Those views will be expressed at the meeting to which I referred.

      School Leavers
      Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the prospects of employment for school leavers in the summer.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Long-term prospects will depend largely upon the successful development of the Government's economic policies, which must in turn be related to world economic conditions. In the shorter term we have introduced a wide programme of measures designed to lessen the impact of unemployment on particularly hard-hit groups, such as the young, and we are urgently considering the proposals for additional assistance on an even more far-reaching scale which are contained in the recently published report of the Manpower Services Commission on Young People and Work.
      Mr. Wilson: In view of the dire prospects facing school leavers this summer, will not the Minister accept the view of the House that the empty statement that he has just made is devoid of policy content? As a representative of the interim Government of Scotland, can he not come up with some specific policies to deal with the real human problems that will face those who are about to leave school in the industrial areas of Scotland?
      Mr. MacKenzie: My statement was not an empty statement, nor did it imply any complacency on my part. I can speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we are genuinely and sincerely concerned about prospects for young people who will be leaving school in June. However, we have already taken a number of measures, such as job creation programmes, youth employment subsidies and job release schemes, which make and have made a substantial contribution to providing employment for young people.
      Secondly, much work has been done and will continue to be done in providing training for young people. As I said, we hope to respond quickly to the report prepared for our guidance by the Manpower Services Commission. I should add that the Manpower Services Commission's functions in Scotland will be transferred

      1399
      to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1st July, and we shall have our own response to make in that regard.
      Mr. Sillars: Why does the Minister constantly import international dimensions into the arguments about employment? The construction industry is not affected by international consequences of the IMF. Why do the Government not give a massive boost to the construction industry and employ a very large number of young people in the productive side of this industry and, at the same time, increase the number of apprentices and journeymen that we shall require in the next five or six years?
      Mr. MacKenzie: Before people decide to build factories they have to have something to produce in them. This is where the international scene is involved. Recently the Chancellor made a number of announcements relating to assistance for the construction industry. We hope that these will make a valuable contribution to employment in this area.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: When does the Minister expect to have the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland? Is he not ashamed that after three years of Labour Government we have such an appallingly high rate of unemployment?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I, and everyone else on the Government side of the House, regard the present unemployment figures as totally unsatisfactory. The Government have pursued a number of initiatives and we trust that these will reduce the unacceptable level in the future. I shall not make any guesses; I shall leave that to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). That is a problem for him, not for me.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about increases in social security benefits.
In accordance with Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975, I reviewed the present level of benefits before the end of the 1976–77 financial year and formally determined that they needed to be
1400
increased. Increases will be paid from the week beginning 14th November, which is one year after the last uprating.
Under the Act, pensions and other long-term benefits must go up in line with the rise in earnings or prices, whichever is greater, and short-term benefits must rise in line with prices. During the 12 months to November 1977 prices are expected to rise faster than earnings, so the increase in prices will be the benchmark both for long and for short-term benefits.
In the Financial Statement published at the time of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, prices were forecast to rise by 13 per cent. between the last quarter of 1976 and the last quarter of this year. Having given full consideration to all relevant matters, I am satisfied that this forecast represents the most reliable guide available to me of the likely movement of prices between last November and this November. I expect the rate of inflation to fall during the next six months well below the year-on-year rate represented by the April monthly figure that was published last week. The factors that gave rise to that rate were foreseen and fully taken into account in the forecast I have mentioned.
When this Government came to office in February 1974 pensions stood at £7·75 and £12·50. I have decided that from this November the single pension will go up to £17·50 and the married couples' pension to £28, cash increases of £2·20 and £3·50 over the present rates. This is an increase of nearly 14½ per cent.; and for married couples it equals the biggest cash rise ever—the one we made shortly after returning to power in 1974. The increases will also apply to the standard rate of widow's pensions and to invalidity pensions.
By November we shall have far more than doubled pensions compared with the rates paid by the previous Government. Even after allowing for inflation, by last November this Government had increased the real value of pensions and other benefits by 15 per cent. This November's increase should cover inflation since the last uprating and provide a further increase in real purchasing power.
Many pensioners will also be glad to know that this year, for the first time, the uprating order will change the earnings

1401
rule limit, in accordance with the recent Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The limit will go up from £35 to £40.
Short-term benefits for sickness and unemployment will go up by £1·80, from £12·90 to £14·70, for a single person, and for a married couple they will rise by £2·90, from £20·90 to £23·80. Maternity allowance and injury benefit will go up by the same amounts. Injury benefit will become £17·45 a week for the single person and £26·55 for the married man with a dependent wife.
War and industrial injuries disablement and widow's pensions will go up in line with long-term benefits. For example, the 100 per cent. rate of pension for war disablement or for work injury will go up from £25 to £28·60. There will be comparable increases in the additional allowances which can be paid with these pensions.
I now turn to the civilian disabled. The therapeutic earnings limit, which is applicable to all the incapacity benefits, will go up from £9 to £10 a week.
I am glad to confirm that, from the week beginning 14th November, disabled married women unable to go out to work and unable to do their housework will be eligible for the non-contributory invalidity pension. There will be more details on this later.
The House will also recall that I have already announced an increase of £2 in the mobility allowance with effect from November.
For supplementary benefit, the cash increases in the main scale rates will be the same as those in the related national insurance benefits, and they will come into force at the same time. For the present, at least, there will continue to be five separate children's supplementary benefit rates, related to age. The proposal we have had under consideration to reduce the number of these rates will be studied further as part of the review of the supplementary benefits scheme.
Also in November, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will increase the discretionary additions for extra heating from 70p to 80p, from £1·40 to £1·60, and from £2·10 to £2·40. The discretionary addition for special dietary needs will go
1402
up from 75p to 90p, and from £1·75 to £2·10.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has it in mind to make appropriate adjustments in the needs allowances for the rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes. He will be consulting his Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances.
The full-year cost of the whole of this uprating, including the increase in supplementary benefits and in heating and dietary additions, is just under £1,500 million. Nearly £1,250 million of this will fall on the National Insurance Fund and will be taken into account in the annual review of contributions in the autumn. Any changes in contribution rates for 1978–79 resulting from that review will of course require the approval of Parliament.
For the convenience of the House, full details of all the new rates of benefit are available in the Vote Office and will be circulated in the Official Report. I shall be laying the necessary draft uprating order, under Section 124 of the Social Security Act, after the recess. The order will be accompanied by a Government Actuary's report in the normal way.
I am sure the whole House will welcome these further measures to protect the position of pensioners and other beneficiaries in these difficult times.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the whole House will give a general welcome to his announcement, with its prospect of much-needed help for the most hard-pressed in the community because of the present dreadful rate of inflation.
Is the Secretary of State aware that most people will compare his 14p in the pound pension increase with the 17½p in the pound price increase that has taken place since a year ago? Is he further aware that in the last five months since the last uprating took place, the increase in prices has been almost 9p in the pound? Is he seriously expecting a rise of only just over 5p in the pound between now and next November? Does he realise that, if that is achieved, it will mean an annual rate of inflation over that period of almost exactly 8·4 per cent.? Does

1403
he not recognise that the country will view that figure with some scepticism?
Perhaps the key question is what he will do if it turns out that the rate of inflation is higher than that and if the amount which he has just announced is not enough to comply with the statutory requirement in Section 125 of the Social Security Act. Will he bring forward legislation to change the statutory obligation or is he advised that the Act does not impose on him an obligation to keep the pension in line with prices or earnings?
Mr. Ennals: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's opening words of welcome. I shall try to deal carefully with his questions.
I forecast a 13 per cent. figure November-on-November. The right hon. Gentleman asked how this related to 17·5 per cent., the April-on-April figure. The up-rating of benefits is related to inflation from November to November, not from April to April. The April-on-April figure is no guide to the inflation which we can expect in the second half of this year. It included the price rises due to the Budget—cigarettes, petrol, vehicle excise duty—and increases in rates. Thirdly, the April year-on-year figure is not out of line with our expectations.
The inflation figures are expected to fall sharply later in the year. By November the effect of last year's drought and the falling exchange rate will have completely worked themselves through. The turnabout in the balance of payments means that we have a stable exchange rate. The money supply is firmly under crontrol, and there are other good signs as well. Interest rates are coming down, which has already led to a 1 per cent. fall in mortgage rates, and a further fall is in prospect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to withhold the increase in petrol duty.
For all these reasons, I believe that a figure of 13 per cent. is a realistic forecast, and the House will have noted that the present Government have set out to better the position of pensioners and not simply to tie it to an assessment of the rate of inflation.
Judging by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, may I ask whether the Opposition think that we have done too much
1404
or too little? If they believe that we have done too much, pensioners will know where they stand in regard to the Opposition. If the Opposition think that we have done too little, how do they square this with their desire for swingeing cuts in public expenditure? Our record on pensions and other benefits is very much better than that of preceding Conservative Governments, and the Opposition know it.
Mrs. Castle: Is not my right hon. Friend gambling on reductions in the rate of inflation in the next seven months of next year compared with the first five months? Does not the difficulty and danger of doing this show how much wiser it would have been for the Government to revert to the original method of uprating—the historical method which, in this uprating, would have given an increase of 16·7 per cent.?
Will my right hon. Friend please answer the question: what will the Government do if the rate of inflation is not halved and if there is a short-fall on his statutory obligations?
Mr. Ennals: I have confidence in the figures I have given and believe that it will not be necessary to make any such adjustment. Therefore, I do not believe that this is a gamble. There have been a number of forecasts of the likely annual inflation rate in November. Several of them have been below the figure which I gave. The general forecast is that the figure which I have given, with all the expectations we have of strengthening the economy, is likely to be the right one.
I ask the House to recognise what one newspaper refers to today as a spectacular turn-round in the nation's financial health in the past six months. The pound is stable, there is a new confidence in industry and commerce, unemployment is down, the balance of payments is steadily improving, reserves are at a record height, and interest rates are down. In this situation I believe that I am entitled to be optimistic about future price movements.
Mr. McCrindle: I, too, welcome the increase in cash benefits, but if the Government are wrong in estimating the rate of inflation year-on-year as no more than 14·5 per cent., what the right hon. Gentleman has announced this afternoon is a

1405
reduction in the standard of living of pensioners and other beneficiaries. Has any advance been made on the age-old problem of announcing an increase in May and not being able to pay it before November?
Mr. Ennals: It would be easier for me to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question if the Opposition would say whether they are suggesting that I should have given a higher figure and therefore caused higher public expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered the question. I have said that I have confidence, and I am required by statute to satisfy myself, that the figure I have prophesied is at least adequate to cover prices. If unforeseen circumstances arise, it will be for the Government to decide whether any further measures need to be taken. Nobody can ever foresee these things, least of all my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who was my predecessor in this office. She knows, as does the rest of the House, that this Government have never let down the pensioners, the sick, the disabled or the unemployed.
Mr. Prentice: My right hon. Friend announced increases in unemployment benefits and sickness benefits which were lower than those for longer-term benefits. Will he express those figures in percentage terms? Will he say whether the Government's objective is to see that those short-term benefits do not increase more than the Government's prices and incomes objective—namely, as I understand it, a maximum rise of 10 per cent.? Are the Government anticipating a growth or a reduction in the number of people who after November will be better off on benefits than if they are at work?
Mr. Ennals: I have no reason to believe that there will be any such increase. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given substantial tax reliefs to those in work and, on top of that, they will receive pay increases in the coming year. Furthermore, there will be increases in family income supplement for low earners.
If my right hon. Friend is concerned about whether my announcement is likely to increase the very small number of
1406
people who could be better off receiving benefits than if they were in work, it is most unlikely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The part of the question which I have not yet answered is that 14 per cent. is the figure for short-term benefits and 14·4 per cent. is the figure for long-term benefits. There is a small gap between the two, which is a slight reversal of the situation announced a year ago.
Mr. Boscawen: Since the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was able to increase the purchasing power of the pensioner in July 1974 by some 30 per cent. is it not the case that since the right hon. Gentleman took office the increase in real terms has fallen to 15 per cent.? Is that not the reason why pensioners feel that they are falling behind in their standard of living?
Mr. Ennals: That is simply not true. When we look back over the years we can see that pensioners are not falling back in their standard of living. Up to November last year, at the time of the last increase, pensioners were 16 per cent. better off in real terms since we came into office compared with the situation which we inherited from our predecessors. I believe that the announcement which has been made today will be a further step in the improvement, in real terms, of the position of pensioners in this country.
Mr. John Mendelson: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about the timing of the measures that he has just announced? While he is obviously entitled to point to the positive factors developing in the economy, and to the good record of the Government in looking after pensioners and other people entitled to such social payments, he has nonetheless an obligation to the House and to pensioners to answer this question. If his calculations on inflation prove to be wrong, the effect will be seen as early as July or the beginning of August. Will he give an undertaking that if that unfortunately proves to be so, he will bring forward the increase, otherwise there will be a long gap during which pensioners and other beneficiaries will suffer if the pensions increase is delayed until November?
Mr. Ennals: I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism. I assure him that it

1407
is not possible, as Conservative Members who have been in Government know, to bring forward the uprating. The minimum period that is required for an uprating—we are, after all, dealing with a total of 80 million beneficiaries—is 20 weeks. In any case my hon. Friend's assessment does not stand up because the Government's assessment is that in the next two or three months we shall see a higher rate of inflation—considerably higher than that which I have prophesied for November—but that from the summer we shall see a sharp decrease.
Of course, if the time comes and we find that this assessment has been wrong, the Government—as any previous Government would have to do, or as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn would have done—will have to look at this situation. But I have confidence both in the assessment that I have made and in the fact that pensioners will have a real increase when November comes.
Mr. Costain: Was the Secretary of State's attention drawn to the fact that people who were born before 1895 get only half the burial grant of those born since? That is now a miserable figure of £15. Why have the Labour Government not increased this grant, which was introduced by a Conservative Government?
Mr. Ennals: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman asked himself why his own Government never increased the death grant. It is a very small figure. As the hon. Gentleman—I was about to say "knows" but it is possible that he does not know, but as most hon. Members would know, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can give a great deal of assistance to those in difficulty at the time of death. It is certainly not the intention of this Government, any more than it was the intention of the previous Government, to increase the death grant. We believe it much more important to ensure that a proper increase for pensioners is paid across the board, and this the Government are doing.
Mr. Urwin: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's announcement today and understanding the real benefits which will accrue to retirement pensioners generally, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an indication of how soon he
1408
considers that it will be possible to move retirement pensions closer to average wages? When will it be possible to have pensions which are 50 per cent. of average wages in industry and which are index protected thereafter? Despite the carping criticism from Conservative Members about the 15½per cent. increase, does my right hon. Friend accept that in the present phase 3 negotiations on incomes policy there are many trade unionists who would be happy to settle within a ceiling of 15½ per cent.?
Mr. Ennals: I believe that on the whole trade unionists will welcome this decision because they not only believe in the general strength of the economy but have shown a deep concern for the welfare of pensioners. I think they will recognise this Government to be as concerned about pensioners. With regard to relating pensions to average earnings, we are already in a situation where the single pensioner is getting about one-third of average net earnings and a couple is getting about half of average net earnings. The only other point I would add is that in 1978 we shall move to the new pensions scheme, which is of tremendous importance for all of us who will be retiring after 1978. That scheme guarantees a very much higher level of benefit than now.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the three hon. Members on either side who have been standing up.
Mr. George Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend give a figure for the surplus that there is likely to be in the National Insurance Fund at the end of the present fiscal year? Does he agree that the increases in short-term benefits that he has announced make it all the more necessary, urgently but very calmly, to consider the question of the relationship between tax and short-term social security benefits?
Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the decision that I have announced today. With regard to the National Insurance Fund, in December 1976 the Government Actuary estimated that the fund would show an operational surplus of £880 million in 1977–78. The effect of the uprating alone will be to reduce the expected surplus to

1409
about£680 million, but a further report from the Government Actuary will be available when the uprating order has been laid.
As has been said on previous occasions, tax and short-term benefits is a matter which is under review. There are some very serious administrative problems, which both Governments have recognised, but the matter is being considered at present.
Mr. Newton: Can the Secretary of State confirm that for the second year running this percentage increase is substantially larger than the percentage increase in the tax allowances for retired people? Therefore, a large number of pensioners will lose a lot of this increase in extra tax. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a figure to compare with the £100 million which was clawed back from retired people and widows last year?
Mr. Ennals: No, I cannot give a figure. The hon. Gentleman might ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He seems to have failed to recognise the considerable number of pensioners and other people with very small incomes who will be taken out of the tax bracket. The measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget are of benefit not only to pensioners but also to those on low incomes.
Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend understand that all these thousands, indeed millions of people who are taken out of the tax bracket every year, will be clawed back into it the following year? It is the same people coming in and out all the time. Does he not accept that this is a poor response to the call made by the TUC last October for £35 a week for a married couple? In view of the massive price increases emanating from the Common Market and the two transitions which will have to take place this year and with the price of tea now at 32p a quarter and coffee at £1·70 a jar, percentages may sound OK but the £2·20 increase will not go far set against the massive price increases that are taking place. My right hon. Friend ought to be considering taking charge of this administrative muddle and bringing the increase forward to July.
Mr. Ennals: I believe that pensioner couples—I agree that they look at cash more than at percentages—
Mr. Skinner: Yes, they do.
Mr. Ennals:—will see the £3·50 increase, bringing them to a total of £28, as the largest cash increase there has ever been. I believe that they will recognise this as a very fair measure undertaken by the Government at a time of economic difficulties. All of us, of course, out of the warmth of our hearts, would like to add an extra £1, but I have to tell my hon. Friend that each extra £1 which we add on the pension adds £500 million to total public expenditure. If I were to accept the sort of package which my hon. Friend has put forward, it would multiply by two or three times the total cost to public expenditure of what I have announced.
Mr. Skinner: I should pay my share.
Mr. Ennals: Perhaps my hon. Friend would pay his share, but I very much doubt whether across the country people would want to pay for that in increased taxes instead of having the reduced taxes which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced.
Mr. Burden: If pensioners are so much better off under this Labour Government, how does the Secretary of State explain the fact that so many of them have recently been threatened with having their electricity cut off because they were unable to pay for it, and the Government had to intervene with the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to make special arrangements so that that should not happen?
Mr. Urwin: The Tories cut the electricity off for them in the three-day working week.
Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman will know that a new code of conduct has been published which was worked out between the Government and the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to prevent precisely the circumstances which he is now laughing about. Moreover, because we have fully recognised the problems which elderly people have in regard to heating, we have not only substantially increased the heating allowance available to those who need additional heat but we have also ensured that the number able to obtain it has substantially

1411
increased. In fact, it is just over 1 million people. That is one way by which this Government can help those who are in special need.
Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we recognise that the Government have taken at least some measures to try to prevent people's electricity from being cut off—which is more than the Opposition would do—and will he accept also that we recognise that pensioners are better off as a result of the Government's measures, even though we may still not be satisfied? However, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the question of uprating child benefit in November, since it cannot be said that people with families are better off and some of us are seriously concerned about this? Will he uprate child benefit in November and accept the principle of an annual uprating thereafter?
Mr. Ennals: I thank my hon. Friend for what she said in her first two questions. It is true that the Conservative Government took no action whatever to deal with the problems of the elderly, the sick and the disabled who might have their electricity cut off. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members who say that that is rubbish can write to me and explain what their Government did.
Of course, it is true, as my hon. Friend said, that pensioners are better off under this Government than ever before. However, although I should like to say that it would be possible to increase child benefit in November, I have to tell my hon. Friend that it would not be possible.

DETAILS OF NEW RATES OF BENEFIT

the following are the new rates:

MAIN INCREASED CONTRIBUTORY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY BENEFIT RATES

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Standard rate of invalidity, widow's and Category A retirement* pensions; Category B retirement pension at the higher rate* and widowed mother's allowance

15·30

17·50

Increase of invalidity pension and Category A retirement pension for wife or other adult dependant; Category B retirement pension at the lower rate*

9·20

10·50

Earnings limit for retirement pensioners and wives of retirement and invalidity pensioners

35·00

40·00

Standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefits:

Higher rate

12·90

14·70

Increase for wife or other adult dependant

8·00

9·10

Lower rate

9·20

10·50

Widow's allowance (first 26 weeks of widowhood)

21·40

24·50

Maternity allowance

12·90

14·70

We have to decide what the level of child benefit will be in April next year, when we come to the second phase of the transfer into the full child benefit scheme. I am under an obligation to review the effect on child benefit of any changes in the value of money. I cannot give my hon. Friend the guarantee for which she asks, but I assure her that my colleagues and I in the Government are anxious to take any measures we can to show our absolute commitment not only to the principle but to the practice of the child benefit scheme.
Mr. Adley: Cannot the Secretary of State understand that his smug satisfaction with what he calls the largest cash increases ever is nothing less than an indictment of the Government's whole economic policy, because of the fall of the value of money under this Administration? Does he not realise that it is clear to all of us here listening to him that what he appears to be promising pensioners is jam tomorrow on bread which they cannot afford today?
Mr. Ennals: I am fulfilling—indeed, more than fulfilling—an absolute obligation to ensure that pensioners are protected from rises in the cost of living, and I am doing it by November. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to answer the question which I put earlier about whether he or his right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting that I have done too little or have done too much. He made no attempt to answer that, and I do not think that he would qualify for a place on his Front Bench.
Following is the information:

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Invalidity allowance payable with invalidity pension, when incapacity began before age:

35

…

…

…

…

…

3·20

3·70

45

…

…

…

…

…

2·00

23·30

60 for men or 55 for women

…

…

…

…

…

1·00

1·15

Attendance allowance:

Higher rate

…

…

…

…

…

12·20

14·00

Lower rate

…

…

…

…

…

8·15

9·30

Retirement pension for persons over pensionable age on 5th July 1948 and for persons over 80†:

Higher rate

…

…

…

…

…

9·20

10·50

Lower rate

…

…

…

…

…

5·60

6·30

Non-contributory invalidity pension

…

…

…

…

…

9·20

10·50

Invalid care allowance

…

…

…

…

…

9·20

10·50

Increase of non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance for wife or other adult dependant

…

…

…

…

…

5·60

6·30

Mobility allowance

…

…

…

…

…

5·00

7·00

Guardian's allowance

…

…

…

…

…

6·45

7·40

Child's special allowance; increases for children of widows, invalidity, non-contributory invalidity and retirement pensioners, and invalid care allowance beneficiaries:

First child

…

…

…

…

…

6·45

7·40

Any other

…

…

…

…

…

5·95

6·90

Increases for children of all other beneficiaries:

…

…

…

…

…

First child

…

…

…

…

…

3·05

3·50

Any other

…

…

…

…

…

2·55

3·00

* An age addition of 25p is payable to retirement pensioners who are aged 80 or over.

† Excluding the 25p age addition.

MAIN INCREASED INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFIT RATES

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Injury Benefit*†

…

…

…

15·65

17·45

Disablement benefit (100 per cent. assessment)*

…

…

…

25·00

28·60

Unemployability supplement‡:

…

…

…

15·30

17·50

Special hardship allowance (maximum)

…

…

…

10·00

11·44

Constant attendance allowance (normal maximum)

…

…

…

10·00

11·40

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

…

…

…

10·00

11·40

Industrial death benefit:

Widow's pension during first 26 weeks of widowhood

…

…

…

21·40

24·50

Widow's pension now payable at £15·85 rate

…

…

…

15·85

18·05

Widow's pension now payable at £4·59 rate

…

…

…

4·59

5·25

* The rates for beneficiaries not over the age of 18 will also be increased.

† Increases for adult dependants and children will be the same as those payable with unemployment and sickness benefits.

‡ Invalidity allowances and increases for adult dependants and children will be the same as those payable with invalidity pensions.

MAIN INCREASED WAR PENSION RATES

All ranks receive the same increases, officers' rates being expressed in pounds per annum.

PART I: DISABLEMENT BENEFITS

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed weekly Rate

£

£

Disablement pension for private at 100 per cent. rate

…

…

…

25·00

28·60

Unemployability allowances*:

Personal allowance

…

…

…

16·30

18·60

Increase for wife or other adult dependant

…

…

…

9·20

10·50

Comforts allowance:

Higher rate

…

…

…

4·30

4·90

Lower rate

…

…

…

2·15

2·45

Allowance for lower standard of occupation (maximum)

…

…

…

10·00

11·44

Constant attendance allowance:

…

…

…

Special maximum

…

…

…

20·00

22·80

Special intermediate

…

…

…

15·00

17·10

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Normal maximum

…

…

…

…

…

10·00

11·40

Half and quarter day

…

…

…

…

…

5·00

5·70

Age allowance with assessments of:

40 and 50 per cent.

…

…

…

…

…

1·80

2·00

Over 50 and not exceeding 70 per cent.

…

…

…

…

…

2·75

3·10

Over 70 and not exceeding 90 per cent.

…

…

…

…

…

3·90

4·40

Over 90 per cent.

…

…

…

…

…

5·50

6·20

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

…

…

…

…

…

10·00

11·40

Severe disablement occupational allowance

…

…

…

…

…

5·00

5·70

Existing annual Rate

Proposed Annual Rate

£

£

Clothing allowance:

Higher rate

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

36·00

40·00

Lower rate

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

23·00

25·00

* Invalidity allowances and increases for children will be the same as those payable with invalidity pensions.

PART II: DEATH BENEFITS

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Widow's pension—private's widow:

Standard rate

…

…

…

…

…

…

19·80

22·70

Childless widow under 40

…

…

…

…

…

…

4·59

5·25

Rent allowance

…

…

…

…

…

…

7·50

8·60

Age allowance for elderly widows:

Between age 65 and 70

…

…

…

…

…

…

1·95

2·20

Over age 70

…

…

…

…

…

…

3·90

4·40

Widower's pension

…

…

…

…

…

…

19·80

22·70

Adult orphans

…

…

…

…

…

…

15·30

17·50

MAIN INCREASED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES

Existing Ordinary Rate

Existing Long-Term Rate*

Proposed Ordinary Weekly Rate

Proposed Long-Term Weekly Rate*

£

£

£

£

Ordinary scale:

Husband and wife

…

20·65

24·85

23·55

28·35

Person living alone

…

12·70

15·70

14·50

17·90

Any other person aged:

Not less than 18

…

10·15

12·60

11·60

14·35

Less than 18 but not less than 16

…

7·80

—

8·90

—

Less than 16 but not less than 13

…

6·50

—

7·40

—

Less than 13 but not less than 11

…

5·35

—

6·10

—

Less than 11 but not less than 5

…

4·35

—

4·95

—

Less than 5

…

3·60

—

4·10

—

Blind scale:

Husband and wife:

If one of them is blind

…

21·90

26·10

24·80

29·60

If both of them are blind

…

22·70

26·90

25·60

30·40

Any other blind person aged:

Not less than 18

…

13·95

16·95

15·75

19·15

Less than 18 but not less than 16

…

8·70

—

9·80

—

Less than 16 but not less than 13

…

6·50

—

7·40

—

Less than 13 but not less than 11

…

5·35

—

6·10

—

Less than 11 but not less than 5

…

4·35

—

4·95

—

Less than 5

…

3·60

—

4·10

—

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Non-householder rent allowance

…

…

…

…

…

…

1·20

1·45

Attendance requirements:

Higher rate

…

…

…

…

…

…

12·20

14·00

Existing Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

£

Lower rate

…

…

…

…

8·15

9·30

Discretionary additions to supplementary benefit:

Heating additions

…

…

…

…

0·70

0·80

1·40

1·60

2·10

2·40

Central Heating additions

…

…

…

…

0·35

0·40

0·70

0·80

1·40

1·60

Dietary additions

…

…

…

…

0·75

0·90

1·75

2·1

* Where the claimant or a dependant is aged 80 or over a further 25p is added to these long-term rates.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (Mr. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: I have a privilege ruling to give to the House. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) raised a complaint of privilege in regard to a news item published on the Press Association tape referring to union sponsorship. It is this complaint, and this alone, which I regard as being one for my decision.
I have considered this matter carefully, and I am satisfied that it is a proper case for me to allow a motion relating to it to have precedence over the Orders of the Day.
It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington raised certain other issues of a peripheral nature. I could not in any event allow precedence to these other matters since they were not raised at the earliest opportunity.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
perhaps I may add that the Committee of Privileges has been considering the whole question of privilege and is preparing a report on the matter for the House which would alter—and, as I believe, would greatly improve—the procedures which we should follow for dealing with these matters. In my view, the sooner we can bring those changes into operation the better it will be for the House as a whole and the less it will be
1418
necessary for the time of the House to be taken on these matters and for me to move such a motion as I have now moved.
I very much hope that we shall bring that report to the House speedily, that we shall get it passed speedily, and that we shall be able to adopt an improved method for dealing with the whole question of privileges.
Mr. Whitelaw: This must come as a remarkable occasion, since I agree with every word just said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. In that circumstance, I hope that the House will proceed on the basis which he has proposed. I am, with the right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Committee of Privileges, and I entirely agree with what he said on the other matter.
Mr. Skinner: As I reminded the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this is a very narrow question. Invariably, when these matters arise they deal with trade union sponsorships. However, we all know that there are many right hon. and hon. Members, mainly on the Opposition Benches, and a few on these—I say a few, but there may be a few more—who get involved in sponsorships, directorships of one kind and another, consultancies and so on with firms of all descriptions.
In fact, there is a lot of shady business which is contracted to Members of Parliament, as one can see if one turns to the Register of Members' Interests and tries to examine more fully precisely what these Members of Parliament are supposed to do for the sums of money which they are getting from the firms in question. I had to deal with this matter in the Standing Committee on a Bill recently but, despite all my researches, I was not then able to uncover all the aspects relating to certain matters.

1419
However, of one thing I am certain. Whereas, when a trade union—for instance, the one referred to yesterday—takes a decision in an open democratic fashion and decides on a resolution, it is there for all the world to see, I have no doubt that at the same time there are bound to be instances of firms which may well be uncertain and dissatisfied with the way in which Members of Parliament, especially on the Opposition Benches, are carrying out the sponsorships for which they are paid.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, trade unions by and large pay substantial amounts of money not to the Members concerned but mainly to the constituency parties. But I assume that in nearly all circumstances directorship fees go into the pockets of the Members concerned.
There are bound to be occasions when firms are so dissatisfied with the performance of their Members of Parliament, as seemingly is the case with trade unions on occasions, that they secretly, not openly, decide to stop the sponsorship or the money. In those circumstances, Members cannot raise the issue with you, Mr. Speaker. For example, the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who raised the issue, may not know that Holiday Inns has decided that the Member concerned is not fulfilling the object for which he is paid—namely, to assist Holiday Inns as a Member of Parliament.
Again, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is paid as a consultant to Trust Houses Forte. That company is engaged in trying to prevent its staff from becoming trade unionists. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman has recently been engaged in a phoney campaign to encourage Tory members engaged in various industries and firms to join trade unions. Let us suppose that Trust Houses Forte directors—Lord Thorneycroft and a few others, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—got together and said "Let us stop this man's money because he is not pulling his weight. He is acting against the best interests of Trust Houses Forte." The money could be stopped. That might sound somewhat hilarious.
We know for a fact that it has not happened, but in certain circumstances a firm
1420
could decide that it has an idle Tory Member of Parliament, or perhaps one of those Labour Members of Parliament who are engaged in these matters, or even one of the Liberal Members of Parliament who are engaged in a multitude of matters of this kind, and therefore stops the payment of the fee. The net result would be that, as I explained, no Member of Parliament would be in a position to raise the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was absolutely right when he said that this was a very wide question. Yesterday I asked you, Mr. Speaker, to look at this matter in a broader context. I know that you have difficulties because of various Committee decisions and past precedents. However, I think that it is high time that the House, and particularly people outside, understood that many Members are fed up to the back teeth with having to listen to taunts being made against trade union sponsored Members of Parliament whilst the rest of that crowd opposite seem to go unchallenged.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend made his rather abstract general remarks he was really saying—[Interruption.] I did not think that he was being very specific. He has not been all that specific since he got that job. We all do a bit of generalising at times, but when one gets on the Treasury Front Bench one has to do a lot of it. I think that you do as well, Mr. Speaker.
If my right hon. Friend deals with the matter in the manner that I have described, we shall perhaps change this business which has occurred so often in the past. We shall not in future tolerate one section of Members of Parliament who are carrying out sponsorship duties—[Interruption.] Well, some are. I have been disagreeing with the National Union of Mineworkers currently over pay policy since we have had a Labour Government. It seems that only in Opposition do I support its view. But we are sponsored Members of Parliament acting in the interests not only of our constituents but of our trade unions on occasions. It is time that those who represent firms and have consultancies of one kind and another were treated in like manner so that we can dispose of this matter once and for all and stop the business of Members coming here and making remarks of the kind which were made on this occasion.
Mr. Prentice: I support the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but with rather more enthusiasm for it than he displayed in his remarks.
This is a unique and much more serious situation than we might have assumed from the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The resolution passed at the NUPE conference yesterday, if allowed to prevail and become a precedent, would be a dangerous intervention in the normal democratic traditions of this country.
I speak as someone who was a sponsored trade union Member of Parliament for many years. I resigned from the panel of the Transport and General Workers' Union last year because I no longer believed that the system was good or that it was relevant to modern needs.
During the years when I was a sponsored trade union Member of Parliament, I frequently disagreed, as did other members of the TGWU panel, with the union's current policy. I recall strongly disagreeing with its policy over nuclear disarmament, incomes policy, the Common Market and other issues. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that he frequently disagreed with the NUM's policy.
If a sponsored Member of Parliament has a difference of view with the union sponsoring him—I agree that this principle should apply to those who work for private companies—his duty as a Member of Parliament is to speak out. Any union or firm which tries to put pressure on a sponsored Member not to speak out is conducting itself in a very dangerous way.
The motion passed yesterday purported to instruct six Members of this House to act in a way which was not in accordance with their convictions or to lose trade union sponsorship. I have the greatest respect for those six Members. I welcome the fact that they have publicly made clear that they will accept no such instruction. It is right that the issue should go to the Committee of Privileges. We should take this matter seriously. Trade unions and other vested interests in this country should be made to recognise that Members of Parliament are not to be bought or sold.
Mr. Lee: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in opposing the motion.
There was an occasion in the 1966–70 Parliament when a former Member for Luton, Mr. Will Howie, found himself in conflict with his trade union because he took a different point of view from the union. Mr. Will Howie, being an honourable man, rather than go on receiving money from a trade union with which he was at variance, had the constitutional propriety to resign his sponsorship. There could be no complaint on either side when that happened. The union was not paying out money to a Member of Parliament to carry out duties contrary to its policy and the Member concerned preserved his freedom of action.
However, it cannot be regarded as tolerable for a Member of Parliament to accept financial sponsorship from a union, knowing the union's policy, and then to behave contrary to it. One cannot accept remuneration to carry out one brief and then take up the opposite side of the court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was absolutely right. I shall certainly challenge this matter to a Division if he does not.
Mr. Foot: I hope that I shall say nothing which will lose me the support of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), having gained it so uniquely by what I said earlier. I shall do my best to avoid losing his support and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that the best course to secure that support is for me to comment as briefly as possible on what has been said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) illustrated the difficulty of the House having a debate in these circumstances before it has looked at the precedents and the facts, which the Committee of Privileges would do. That is the reason why I moved this motion.
I repeat that many of us believe—I am sure that I have the support of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, and this accords with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that the method by which the House has dealt with privilege has not been the best in the

1423
interests not only of the House but of retaining the privileges which are genuinely justified. Therefore, we believe that this cumbrous procedure should be overhauled and that some different method of dealing with most cases should be fashioned.
That suggestion has been considered by the Committee of Privileges. It makes recommendations to the House, and the House considers whether those fresh recommendations should be put into operation. If that were to happen, it would prevent the House embarking on discussions of privilege in circumstances where we do not have the facts and it would also ensure that less time of the House was wasted on these matters. It would also mean that hon. Members would be making clear to the public that they are not thin-skinned in their readiness to accept criticism and that when criticisms are made, and the matters raised, those criticisms should not always be referred to the Committee of Privileges for adjudication—even if they involve a breach of privilege.
For all those reasons I hope that the House will agree that we should refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges. I understand that some of my hon. Friends have a different point of view, and they can put that view in the Division Lobby

Division No. 148]

AYES

[4.22 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Adley, Robert

Cope, John

George, Bruce

Aitken, Jonathan

Costain, A. P.

Gorst, John

Archer, Peter

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Arnold, Tom

Crawshaw, Richard

Graham, Ted

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Crouch, David

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bates, Alt

Crowder, F. P.

Gray, Hamish

Belth, A. J.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Grieve, Percy

Bell, Ronald

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Biffen, John

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Dempsey, James

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Doig, Peter

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bradley, Tom

Durant, Tony

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Braine, Sir Bernard

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Higgins, Terence L.

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hooson, Emlyn

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

English, Michael

Hordern, Peter

Buchanan, Richard

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Buck, Antony

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Budgen, Nick

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Burden, P. A.

Eyre, Reginald

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Faulds, Andrew

Hunter, Adam

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Cant, R. B.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Janner, Greville

Carlisle, Mark

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

John, Brynmor

Cartwright, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Forman, Nigel

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grlnstead)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Forrester, John

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Cockcroft, John

Fox, Marcus

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Freud, Clement

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Coleman, Donald

Fry, Peter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Conlan, Bernard

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Kimball, Marcus

if they wish. However, I must point out to those hon. Members who are critical in these matters—as I have been on many occasions—that we wish to get the whole matter overhauled and the recommendations of the new Committee of Privileges into operation as speedily as we can. Certainly the Government will bring that recommendation before the House as soon as possible, and I hope that this will be the last occasion upon which a Leader of the House must move such a motion in these circumstances.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Ridley (seated and covered): On a point of order. To assist the House, Mr. Speaker, will you indicate who should be allowed to vote in this Division and the necessity of declaring interests before voting? Would it be the case that all trade union sponsored hon. Members should be ineligible to vote?
Mr. Speaker: All hon. Members are free to vote and they take responsibility for their own interests. I cannot stop any hon. Member from voting.
Mr. Prescott: They did not receive the money personally.
The House having divided: Aves 203. Noes 45.

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Newton, Tony

Steel, Rt Hon David

Knight, Mrs Jill

Normanton, Tom

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Knox, David

Nolt, John

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

O'Halloran, Michael

Stoddart, David

Lawson, Nigel

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Page, John (Harrow West)

Tebbit, Norman

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Palmer, Arthur

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Park, George

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Lloyd, Ian

Parker, John

Tinn, James

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Parkinson, Cecil

Townsend, Cyril D.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Trotter, Neville

McCartney, Hugh

Price, William (Rugby)

Urwin, T. W.

McCrindle, Robert

Rathbone, Tim

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

McElhone, Frank

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Macfarlane, Neil

Renlon, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Wakeham, John

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Rhodes James, R.

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mackintosh, John P.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wall, Patrick

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Warren, Kenneth

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Roper, John

Weatherill, Bernard

McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wells, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Whitehead, Phillip

Marten, Nell

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Sainsbury, Tim

Whitlock, William

Mayhew, Patrick

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Mills, Peter

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Winterton, Nicholas

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Shersby, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Montgomery, Fergus

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Woof, Robert

Moonman, Eric

Sims, Roger

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Sinclair, Sir George

Younger, Hon George

Morgan, Geraint

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Spence, John

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Nelson, Anthony

Stalnton, Keith

Mr. A. W. Stallard.

Neubert, Michael

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Hatton, Frank

Prescott, John

Atkinson, Norman

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Bidwell, Sydney

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Buchan, Norman

Kelley, Richard

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Lamond, James

Rooker, J. W.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rose, Paul B.

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Lee, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Clemitson, Ivor

Lipton, Marcus

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Loyden, Eddie

Spriggs, Leslie

Edge, GeoH

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Madden, Max

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Flannery, Martin

Maynard, Miss Joan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Mr. Russell Kerr and

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Ovenden, John

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Grocott, Bruce

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

SUB JUDICE RULE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Sir David Renton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I wish to refer to your ruling yesterday on the sub judice rule. In your ruling, which I welcomed, you said:
"This is a serious criminal charge, and if has been the invariable practice of my predecessors and myself, as long as any such criminal charge is pending, not to permit any
1426
discussion in the House that might conceivably prejudice it."—[Official Report, 24th May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 1189.]
I stress the words "might conceivably". They have a wide application and they remind us that we cannot anticipate the way in which a criminal trial might proceed.
I suggest that we ought not to discuss matters which, if discussed, "might conceivably" prevent its being a fair trial. One way of discussing matters that could have that result would be for us to attack the character or credibility of witnesses or probable witnesses, whether called by the prosecution or the defence.
I must be careful not to infringe the sub judice rule myself by discussing how the trial in question might proceed, but I

1427
believe that I am in order in pointing out that the essence of a charge of forgery is that it alleges intent to defraud. On that issue the prosecution would be at liberty to call the editor, a sub-editor, or any other member of the staff of the newspaper concerned in order to try to establish intent to defraud. Equally, the defence would be entitled to call any of them to rebut any such allegation, especially if the prosecution had not already done so.
If, meanwhile, we in the House attacked any such witness, he would go into court with his reputation already impugned in the minds of the jury, who would have read about the attack, seen it on television, or heard about it on the radio. The witness's evidence would then carry less weight and a miscarriage of justice could occur as a result.
There is the further consideration that, although the civil action is not yet sub judice, its outcome could be influenced by the result of the criminal proceedings and by the way in which witnesses in those proceedings emerge from them. I mention this merely as a further reason for caution in the matter and not as the main foundation of my case.
For the reasons that I have given, perhaps all too briefly—and I am sure that those hon. Members who are awaiting the exciting debate on the Patents Bill will excuse me for entering upon the matter at all—and because further discussion in the House of this matter, which is already sub judice, "might conceivably" prejudice a fair trial of the criminal charge I submit that no further discussion of the criminal case or of the personalities at the centre of it should be allowed in the House until the case is over.
Mr. Lee: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a considered reply to give. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to continue with his point of order?
Mr. Lee: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), with characteristic courtesy and lack of polemic, has raised some important matters. I think that the Chair should consider—
Mr. Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Gentleman may do is to put his point of order to me. He must not argue his case now.
Mr. Lee: I am coming to the point to order by making a point that I hope will be helpful to the Chair. If the line that can be inferred from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said were followed, great difficulties could arise in the discussion of many matters over a very long period.
May I quote a precedent to the contrary? You will recollect the Profumo affair in 1963, Mr. Speaker, and also recollect that there was an extensive debate of the security aspects of that affair even though the trials of Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler were pending before the Central Criminal Court and other criminal matters and proceedings took place, including the inquiry under the present Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning.
That seems to suggest that the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member, although seemingly reasonable, is at variance with the practice of the House, and I submit that it would be most undesirable if the House were constrained in its discussions for what must inevitably be a long and indefinite period. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the civil proceedings have not yet advanced very far and further proceedings may be forthcoming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has tabled a Question to the Attorney-General asking whether proceedings for criminal libel are to be taken against one of the persons concerned in this matter. If, Mr. Speaker, you were to rule in the restrictive way suggested, it is logical that the Attorney-General would be unable to answer that Question. I am sure that the House must agree that it is desirable that he should be questioned about that matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member and to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who did me the courtesy of giving me notice of the point of order. Indeed, he came to see me and submitted his point of view in writing. This has been a great help to me and I am deeply grateful to him.

1429
The House has long taken the view that legal proceedings should not be prejudiced by observations made in debate. It confirmed this view on 20th June 1963 by agreeing to a report on the matter which had been recently issued from the Procedure Committee.
In paragraph 11 of that report the Committee made clear that in its opinion the word "prejudice" covered the possible effect on the members of the court, the jury, the witnesses and the parties to any action. In doing so, however, the Committee defined such possible effects as those by which:
"The minds of magistrates, assessors, members of a jury and of witnesses might be influenced by reading in the newspapers comment made in the House prejudicial to the accused in a criminal case".
This falls far short of ruling out of order all unfavourable comment on the behaviour of someone other than the accused who may hypothetically at some future stage become involved in a criminal case under adjudication.
While, therefore, I see no reason to modify in any way the considered ruling that I gave yesterday—and, indeed, I am grateful to the House for observing it so scrupulously once I had given it—I do not think that it would have been right for me to try to inhibit the House from discussing such aspects of this important matter, which has aroused great interest outside, as do not directly and recognisably relate to the proceedings which are pending. I need hardly add, however, that any comment on the behaviour of the editor, or, indeed, that of any other person in specific relation to the alleged forgery itself would be entirely out of order under the sub judice rule.

STANDING ORDER No. 9 (PROCEDURE)
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) gave me notice at 1.40 p.m. that he wished to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. I fear that he is not able to do that, because Standing Orders make it perfectly clear that notice must be given before 12 o'clock if the information is available at that time. In this case it appeared in the morning papers.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is an hon. Member allowed to make an application in spite of the application not being notified to you before 12 o'clock? Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that, although an application may be less favourably received if you have not had notice of it before 12 o'clock, if you take the view on the substance of the application that you wish to allow it, you may still grant it?
Mr. Speaker: The Standing Orders are more rigid and clear than the hon. Member appears to believe. They say:
"A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour".
The hon. Member acknowledges that the information was in the morning papers.
Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that the House is not able to judge that point. Although you and I, Mr. Speaker, know the subject of the application under Standing Order No. 9, the House is not party to the secret between us. Since the matter concerns the decision yesterday by the Police Federation in favour of the right to strike, the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not pursue the matter. I was going to give the subject myself if the hon. Member had not done so. I intended to do that at an earlier stage.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17th JUNE
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Ralph Howell

Mr. John Farr

Mr. George Rodgers.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities in Scotland to carry out within their area works on behalf of other local authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

  LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford): I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the volume of legislation in force; and for connected purposes.
  I have always had a great deal of sympathy with that prayer uttered in the face of all the tempting temptations of the flesh: "God, make me good—but not yet." I am therefore not ashamed to stand here and ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to stop others from introducing Bills.
  The proposition underlying the Bill is one that has general assent throughout the country if not in the House. It is that we have too much legislation, too many laws and too many regulations
  I have referred outside the House to the legislative incontinence of this Parliament. Upon reflection, I realise that that was not an expression that I should have used. Incontinence implies an unwilling or unintended dribble. This Parliament is no unintentional dribbler of legislation. It pours out the stuff—presumably by intent—year after year. To be fair to the Lord President, he seems to be a reformed character in that respect. But I do not believe that he is permanently reformed. If circumstances changed, he might return to his bad old ways.
  Since the end of the last war 2,000 Public General Acts have been passed in this House. That contrasts remarkably with the Ten Commandments which at one time were held to suffice.
  We have had a number of Acts to control prices, for example. Now it appears that we are all agreed about those. We all agree that those Acts have not been unduly effective. Perhaps before long those Acts will fade into the mists of the past as unwanted legislation. Perhaps we could all find Acts for which we voted—let alone those that we opposed—that might have been better lost in the litter of lost legislation.
  Yes, there have been 2,000 Public General Acts. It is appropriate to quote the wise words of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation which was
  1432
  chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The report was published as Command Paper No. 6053. Paragraph 1.10 of that report states:
  "We must add that little can be done to improve the quality of legislation unless those concerned in the process are willing to modify some of their most cherished habits. We have particularly in mind the tendency of all Governments to rush to much weighty legislation through Parliament in too short a time with or without the connivance of Parliament, and the inclination of Members of Parliament to press for too much detail in Bills. Parliamentarians cannot have it both ways. If they really want legislation to be simple and clear they must accept Bills shorn of unnecessary detail and elaboration."
  My Bill would certainly concentrate the minds of parliamentary draftsmen and us parliamentarians, too.
  Of course, since that report was published we have had the extraordinary affair of the Acts of Parliament (Correction of Mistakes) Bill. That mistake was corrected at an early stage when the Lord President or someone else consigned it to the dustbin before it got any further. However, as the House knows, it was a Bill designed to allow Ministers to correct mistakes in rotten legislation that had been rushed through the House. I am not sure whether one should laugh or cry at either its appearance or its demise.
  Acts of Parliament spawn more and more secondary legislation. Almost every general Act in this respect is like an oilfield blow-out, gushing Statutory Instruments, with no blow-out valve anywhere in the system. Statutory Instruments come gushing out at over 2,000 a year. Indeed, par for the course now seems to have settled at about 2,250. Some of them are never discussed at all.
  Some enjoy the 90-minute farce upstairs—a sort of parliamentary "Just a 90-minute" parlour game. It can be played only for fun, as sometimes the vote is for the motion under discussion and sometimes it is against the motion under discussion—but it makes no difference whatsoever: the Statutory Instrument still comes into force. Therefore, it does not seem a very effective way of regulating our business.
  I need hardly mention in this House the problem of dealing with European legislation—although in passing I remind the Lord President that my Bill should get his support, because it would

  1433
  give him the perfect excuse not to present the Bill on direct elections, not to mention, of course, the devolution Bill.
  As one looks at legislation that has been enacted and at the Statutory Instruments, which are counted not by the page but by the foot of bookshelf space that they occupy, one can have no wonder that the law is in disrepute. Thousands of people break the law without even knowing it. The cascade—perhaps "shower" is a better word—of legislation overwhelms the citizen as regulation follows regulation upon regulation with bewildering and often incomprehensible effect upon his life.
  Unlike the Lord President, I do not believe that the judiciary brings the law into disrepute. I think that it would be truer to say that bad laws and excessive laws passed by this House bring the law into disrepute.
  We are, I think, the worst-paid legislature in the developed free world. As it happens, we also have the worst economic performance in the developed free world. I am not sure whether there is a correlation there. But certainly one other record that we have is that there is no other legislature that produces so much legislation. This is the only productivity record of the whole world that Britain undoubtedly holds—the productivity of Members of this House in putting words of legislation—whether understood or not, or whether even considered properly or not—on the statute book.
  Therefore, my Bill is short and simple. It would require that from the day of enactment there should be no increase in the number of words in force upon the statute book, nor any increase in the number of words of Statutory Instruments and regulations in force. To bring in a new Bill would require the repeal of an existing Act. To make a new regulation
  1434
  would require the rescinding of one already in force. The Bill is based upon the assumption that we have enough legislation. There could be arguments about whether it is the right legislation, but we certainly have too much.
  I have already commented upon the irony of producing a Bill to stop other people producing new Bills. Such legislative abstinence from those who have become addicted to legislating would come hard, and, of course, I would be prepared to consider in Committee some amendment to allow a trickle of new legislation, should a case be made for it—but I would want to see the statute book somewhat cleaned up first.
  This House won power over the Executive not by legislating but by controlling money, by withholding taxation and by stopping kings and queens—and Prime Ministers, too—from spending. We in this House have lost control of the Executive, and we have become a bunch of parliamentary battery hens producing cracked and addled legislation night and day. It is time that we stopped legislating and started to defend the people against the Executive instead of defending the Executive against the people. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Nicholas Ridley and Mr. Ian Gow.

  LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION
  Mr. Norman Tebbit accordingly presented a Bill to limit the volume of legislation in force; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PATENTS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.56 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I have to inform the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  4.57 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  After listening to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I feel a little sensitive about moving the Second Reading of the Bill. However, this is an important and timely Bill, very much desired by industry, and it deals comprehensively with the patent system.
  For me and, I am sure, for many others, the subject of patents and inventions is something of a journey into the unknown, filled with mystery and even eccentricity. One recalls how an inventor is described in "Gulliver's Travels", in one instance, as having been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials, hermetically sealed and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. The patent world is not of course, exactly like that. However, one thinks of the multitude of inventions which pass through the Patent Office which have brought a great deal of benefit and, in some cases, pain, to mankind.
  British inventions have had a substantial part to play in all this—the development of the magnetron, polyester fibres, the hovercraft and disc brakes, to name just a few. I know not whether the ladies' high heel was a British invention, but I think that it must have been invented by a lady who had been kissed on the forehead. However, when one looks at some of the patents, one finds that it is a very remarkable sort of product.
  I have nothing but admiration for those who are engaged in these activities. The
  1436
  patent system was born of the desire to introduce new manufacture into this country. It has its roots in the Statute of Monopolies of 1623, which excepted from the general abolition of private monopoly rights those which are necessary for the encouragement of innovation and investment in industry. It is well recorded by Dickens, in "A Poor Man's Tale of a Patent", that obtaining a patent in days long ago was a very chancy and expensive business.
  It is interesting to reflect—at the same time, it is appalling to think about it—that at one time, each patent applied for was to be the subject of debate in this House. On 14th May 1712 a petition of John Hutchinson was presented to the House and read, setting forth,
  "That the petitioner having invented and brought into practice a portable movement to measure time; which, instead of the several cross motions, hollow wheels with teeth, parallel to their axes, used in former movements, hath all the axes parallel and straight; all the wheels, plates and the balance, parallel and flat; all the teeth straight in the lines of the diameters of the wheels; the axis or spindle of the balance, moved by two wheels alternately, and traversing equal distance in equal time, without pause, in such sort, that none of its moving parts can move nearer to, or farther from, each other; whereby, in the opinion of the greatest mathematicians and best judges of such movements, it is capable of moving more equally, and less liable to be disturbed by external motion; so that it may be of great use to the public for finding the longitude and in several other aspects; and praying leave to bring in a Bill to secure these inventions, and the improvements therein, to the Petitioner."
  It was ordered that leave be given to bring in such a Bill. I hesitate to think what the hon. Member for Chingford would have thought if he he had been in the House at that time.
  Since Dickens' days, there have been very many developments in the inevitable progress of the patents system. It was put on a firm base by an Act of 1883, which established the Patent Office, and this Act has been followed by a succession of amending Acts, each of which introduced some special features into the system. Today the patent system is based on the Patents Act 1949 and there is, I believe, general agreement that this has served the country well.
  However, the Patents Act 1949 retains several concepts which are now outmoded and there is a need for substantial reform of our patent system as the 1975 White

  1437
  Paper clearly established. This is required for two main reasons. First, there is the need to give effect to new ideas and to provide a system which is more attuned to the present-day requirements of industry and inventors. Secondly, there is the need to take fully into account the results of the largest upsurge in international activity that the patents world has ever experienced. The British Government have played a highly significant part in this activity, in the realisation that there is obvious benefit to our industry and our inventors in simplifying the task of obtaining patent protection for their inventions in the different countries of the world.
  These aims were strongly endorsed by a committee which, under the able chairmanship of Sir Maurice Banks, carried out a complete appraisal of our patent system in 1967–70. The Bill gives effect to these aims. It is designed to serve both those who are not concerned to use one of the new international routes to protection and those who are anxious to do so. It not only provides a radical reform of our domestic law and procedure but grafts on to the new domestic system the legal framework necessary for patents obtained by one or other of the international arrangements that will, in the near future, become available for use by export conscious British industry.
  I do not doubt that hon. Members will find that this is a long and highly technical Bill. I find that myself. I can do no more at this stage than lightly sketch in its main features.
  Parts I and III set out the new domestic code, while Part II gives effect to our obligations under international agreements. I shall mention all these later, but for now I shall refer only to the European Patent Convention, which defines a European patent law and procedure. It will enable an applicant to obtain through the European Patent Office, and by means of a single application, a European patent having effect as a national patent in as many of the contracting States as he desires. This Convention rationalises the method of obtaining patent protection in Europe and should provide significant advantage to our industry and our inventors. It is a most important development, and it was with a view to becoming a founder member,
  1438
  when, as expected, the Convention enters into force in the summer months, that, in March this year, the Government ratified the Convention with the approbation of all parties.
  In formulating the new code, the Government were concerned to align it as closely as possible with the European Patent Convention. This is necessary in order to avoid any duality of standards as between British patents, on the one hand, and on the other, European patents which will be effective here, thereby avoiding confusion as to the patent situation and inhibiting commercial activity. This, we feel, is a strong reason for following European law. But there is yet another reason for doing this, because it will obviously assist practitioners to adopt substantially the same practice whether they are seeking a British patent, a European patent or some other patent under one of the other international agreements that we intend to ratify. Because of these needs the Government have responded to several requests in another place to produce closer alignment between the provisions of the Bill and the Convention and, to this end, a number of useful amendments have now been incorporated in the Bill.
  In Part I of the Bill, basic patent law concepts are, indeed, closely modelled on provisions of the Convention. This is exemplified by the conditions of patentability, set out in Clauses 1 and 4, which, among other things, introduce the concept that an invention will not be patentable if it has become public knowledge in any part of the world, whereas the present law relies only on disclosure in the United Kingdom itself.
  Clause 5, concerning priority date, is designed to give the same effect as the priority provisions of the Convention. It provides much more flexibility than the present law in that, like the Convention, it enables a single British application to attract the priorities of both an earlier British application and an earlier foreign filing.
  Clause 22 reflects the patent term of 20 years which the Convention provided for European patents. This is four years longer than is the case now. I believe that this increase in length of the monopoly term is justified by the longer development time which has resulted from

  1439
  more complex technology and the adoption of more stringent safety and other standards.
  Clause 69 reduces the existing grounds of revocation of patents to those important grounds on which European patents may be revoked. These are the grounds which are of practical importance and, although it will no longer be possible for a person to seek revocation of patent for an invention on the ground of his own secret prior use of that invention, this does no harm because Clause 61 introduces the new personal right to continue to use that invention.
  Clause 119 is concerned with the fundamental question of the extent of the protection which is conferred by a patent. It refers expressly to the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention so as to ensure that British patents and European patents are interpreted here in substantially the same way as European patents are to be interpreted under the terms of the Convention.
  Many amendments have been made with a view to closer alignment. I believe that these accord with the views and the needs of our industry and our inventors. But it remains true that the wording of the Bill does not, in all respects, adopt the wording of the Convention. This has been criticised in another place, but I believe that the House will accept that the wording of the Bill should be exact in terms of what is required by the law of the United Kingdom, but, moreover, I believe that the Bill does faithfully reflect the meaning and intent of the Convention provisions with which we need to be aligned. Apart from this, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the rather novel device adopted in subsection (7) of Clause 124, which is specifically intended to ensure a harmonised interpretation.
  Another theme of the Bill is to provide for stronger British patents. Patents of doubtful validity result in uncertainty and can unfairly deter a competitor. This could work particularly harshly in the case of a small firm, which is not in a position to evaluate the strength of others' patents and does not wish to engage in expensive litigation.
  1440
  This situation cannot be allowed to persist into the future when strong European patents will be effective here, and the Bill supplies the remedy by means of Clauses 16 and 17, which strengthen the search and examination carried out by the Patent Office. The search is no longer to be restricted to the determination of the novelty or otherwise of an invention; it is extended to the discovery of documents which are of relevance in assessing whether or not the invention is an obvious follow-up to what is already public knowledge, and this matter will be fully considered during the substantive examination which is provided for under Clause 17. This is a major breakthrough in patent practice in this country and should serve the best interests of industry and inventors.
  As recommended by the Banks Committee, the Bill also seeks to remove delays. At present the information contained in a patent specification is not made available to the public until the legal requirements for the grant of a patent have been met. This can take up to three-and-a-half years. It can inhibit the activities of others, working in the same area, or it can result in a wasteful duplication of effort. As is the case for the European system, the Bill therefore provides, in Clause 15, for publication at a much earlier point in time. Recognising that this might result in piracy of an invention in the period between publication and grant, the Bill also attaches rights to the early publication which, once a patent has been granted, can be exercised against a person who infringes in the interim.
  The Bill also speeds up the granting of patents in the interest of dispelling uncertainty as soon as possible. It preserves the existing feature of a maximum period, within which an application must comply with requirements or be treated as refused, but Clause 17 and other clauses also provide for a general tightening up of procedure, so as to avoid unnecessary and undesirable delays. Third party opposition proceedings prior to a grant have also been abolished in view of the delays and uncertainty which they introduce. But Clause 20 compensates for this by enabling third parties to bring their observations on patentability to the notice of the Patent Office

  1441
  so that they can be taken into account during the examination stage.
  Another feature of the Bill concerns the enhancement of the powers of the Comptroller. As strongly recommended by the Banks Committee, and reflecting the confidence in this country of the Comptroller's court with its relatively cheap and easy procedure, Clause 69 removes existing differences in jurisdiction between the High Court and the Comptroller in revocation proceedings. Applications for revocation may in future be made to the Comptroller at any time during the life of a patent and on the same grounds as are available before the court. This removes the present unsatisfactory state of affairs whereby an applicant for revocation before the Comptroller may attack the patent only on limited grounds, and the Comptroller is obliged to refuse the application not, withstanding the fact that, if he had been able to consider the wider grounds available before the court, he would have revoked the patent.
  In addition, following amendments proposed in another place, which the Government were happy to accept, the Comptroller, provided he has the agreement of the parties, has power under Clause 58 to deal with the question of patent infringement. He may also under Clause 68 assist industry by making declarations of non-infringement in appropriate cases. All these provisions, and other provisions, like Clauses 7, 11 and 34, which give a broad power to the Comptroller to determine disputes as to the rights in patents, should help to meet the frequently expressed desire to keep down the costs of settling disputes, without, of course, affecting the basic right of all citizens to take their troubles to the High Court.
  In connection with litigation, I should refer to Clauses 93 and 94 of the Bill. These provide for a new Patents Court to be constituted as part of the Chancery Division of the High Court. This court will have first instance jurisdiction over actions for infringement and other matters and will also hear appeals from the Comptroller. Under the present law, appeals from the Comptroller are dealt with by the Patents Appeal Tribunal. This is technically of lower status than the High Court and its decisions, therefore, lack the same authority. The change of status provided by the Bill is justified
  1442
  by the need for finality of decision and the avoidance of uncertainties in the interpretation of the law. I believe that the change is welcomed on all sides.
  Before leaving this brief review of the new domestic situation, I should mention Clauses 36 to 40, which represent an important development in British law. They concern inventions made by employees, the rights of ownership of which are at present regulated by the common law. This branch of the law has frequently been criticised as being difficult to ascertain, depending, as it does, on the law as enshrined in judicial precedent.
  Additionally, the present law leans too heavily in favour of the employer, particularly since it allows the employer to require his employee to sign away any rights that he may have in all inventions that he subsequently makes. Furthermore, it gives no right enabling the employee-inventor to seek a reward for his endeavours over and above his usual remuneration—although the Civil Service and a number of firms operate ex gratia schemes for the benefit of their employees.
  We believe that it is desirable to do more for people who invent in the course of their work, while respecting the need for employers to be free to decide whether to take up and exploit inventions made by their employees and to avoid administrative and other difficulties, which inevitably increase overheads. I believe that the scheme embraced by the Bill, which in its essentials was worked out with the help of representatives of industry and the TUC, provides a fair and just balance between the differing interests of the employer and his employee-inventor.
  Clause 36 defines the rules for determining the ownership and the purpose of the clause is to introduce clarity into the law. Where, under the terms of Clause 36, the invention belongs to the employer, Clause 37 enables the employee-inventor to seek an award only when the employer has taken out a patent which has proved to be of outstanding benefit to him.
  In other words, only the employer will usually derive benefit from the patent, and we think this is right since, in cases where the invention belongs to the employer, the inventor is doing no more than the job for which he is being paid. But if the patent turns out to be a real winner, we think that it is equitable to

  1443
  give the inventor some prospect of an award. That is what the Bill provides.
  On the other hand, where, under the terms of Clause 36, the invention belongs to the employee, Clause 37 provides that he can obtain an award if the employer has taken rights in a patent for the invention and the benefit obtained by the employee from the transfer of his rights to the employer is inadequate in relation to the benefit which the employer obtains from the patent. This provision recognises that an employee and his employer have a special relationship and that it is only equitable that the employee should have a right to a review of the transaction entered into with his employer.
  Jurisdiction over disputes is given to the court or the Comptroller and it will be for the plaintiff employee to choose where to lay his legal claim. He cannot be compelled to enter into protracted and expensive litigation before the High Court and it is right that he should have that option.
  However, if there is in operation a collective agreement negotiated between management and the trade union, that jurisdiction is ousted. Indeed, it is expected that in most cases disputes of this kind will be settled sensibly at factory level like any other industrial relations matters, and will not proceed along the lines which would be possible.
  Any award made by the court or the Comptroller has to correspond to a fair share of the benefit derived from the patent and, for guidance, Clause 38 refers to certain factors which should be taken into account. Clause 39 prevents for the future an employer taking advantage of the weak bargaining position of his employee by requiring him to sign away any rights that he may have in inventions that he later makes. As I have said, that is one of the defects of the present law which the Bill removes.
  Certain changes were made to Parts I and III in another place, but although they were numerous the basic structure of the Bill remains largely untouched. Only in a very few cases were they made necessary by second thoughts on policy issues. The bulk of the amendments—not all moved by the Government, by any means—were concerned with
  1444
  detailed improvements and refinements in an exceedingly complex mix of substantive and procedural law.
  However, the Government are concerned about the removal, on the insistence of noble Lords in Opposition, of the clause relating to inventions the publication of which is prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public. This leaves the Bill gravely weakened. Without that provision, the protection of inventions in the defence field would be impossible, and the Patent Office would be obliged to publish the inventions the knowledge of which could do great harm to the public. Therefore, we propose at a later stage to reinstate that provision in the Bill.
  Also we have doubts about the changes that have been made concerning the term of 1949 Act patents, and this is being urgently considered by the Standing Advisory Committee because the relevant provisions were firmly based on recommendations of that Committee.
  After reflecting further on the debates in another place, we have decided to take powers to enable the comptroller to make rules to enable him to be assisted by outside advisers when dealing, for instance, with disputes about employees' inventions or compulsory licences under the provisions of Clause 45.
  As well there is a small number of outstanding points, some of which are purely drafting, which may need attention in Committee.
  Mr. John Lee: Before my hon. Friend comes to his peroration, will he say a word about the powers of the Crown to take over proprietary rights? I think that the provisions of Clause 62 of the Bill are most applicable here, but the equivalent provisions in the 1949 Act were rarely used. I can think of instances where they might have been used, for example in regard to proprietary medicines. Will it be Government policy, if these provisons are repeated, and not whittled down, to use them rather more extensively than in the past?
  Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend does me a great service by thinking that I had a peroration in a speech about patents. I do not know how this will operate in practice. Certainly we have inserted the provision in the Bill. Maybe my hon. and

  1445
  learned Friend will have some wise words to say about that when he winds up the debate, because I can think of none at present.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Minister enlarge just a little on the thoughts that he gave the House about the Comptroller being able to have outside advisers? Are these to be more than scientific advisers or can they come from the general area of business? Will they always sit with the Comptroller or will the Comptroller call on advisers when he thinks fit?
  Mr. Davis: I understand that they will not be scientific advisers. There is power for scientific advisers to be recruited in certain circumstances under the rules of court, but in this instance they are not scientific advisers.
  Before closing I must mention briefly Part II of the Bill, which contains an important group of clauses desgined to give effect to our obligations under international arrangements. I have already referred to the European Patent Convention and indicated its significance, and I need only say now that Clauses 75 and 76 are the main provisions for giving effect to our obligations under this convention.
  There is also the Patent Co-operation Treaty of 1970, the Community Patent Convention of 1975 and the Council of Europe or Strasbourg Convention of 1963. The latter provides for harmonisation of certain basic concepts of patent law. It is Part I of the Bill that implements our obligation under this agreement, an agreement which is not only the foundation on which the other international arrangements have been constructed but also serves the interests of those who may still wish to obtain patent coverage in Europe by the national route.
  Then there is the Patent Co-operation Treaty which provides for a potentially worldwide system for sharing the work of processing national applications. This promises substantial benefit for patentees and a reduction in the burden on national patent offices. Clause 86 is the main provision for giving effect to this treaty.
  Finally, Clause 83 makes the provision of the Community Patent Convention part of our national law. This convention goes further than the European Patent Convention in that it provides for a single patent
  1446
  to be obtained via the European Patent Office, a Community patent having a unitary and autonomous effect throughout the Common Market.
  As explained in the 1975 White Paper, the Government intend in due course to ratify all these conventions. They are closely interlinked and also bound up with the new domestic code set out in the Bill and, when they enter into force, they should greatly benefit both industry and inventors in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world.
  In dealing with something as complex and esoteric as this subject perhaps my speech may be likened to the situation in court when after half-an-hour's peroration of convoluted arguments on behalf of his client, during which no one had the faintest idea what he was talking about, counsel became aware of a growing restlessness. He said to the judge "Is your Lordship following me?" The judge replied "Only just, but if I thought I could find my own way back, I would start right now."
  There have been times when I have felt like that myself in trying to speak on this complicated subject briefly and in terms that I hope are comprehensible to the House. I hope that I have shown that it is a worthwhile and indeed a necessary measure. I commend it to the House.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: This Bill, which the Under-Secretary described with considerable eloquence, is a very important item of legislation.
  I congratulate him on managing a little joke at the end of his speech, given that he did not feel able to have a peroration. Of course, this is not a subject that easily provokes a joke. Nevertheless we were glad to hear one in the Under-Secretary's speech.
  In speaking in this debate my purpose is limited and twofold. First of all, I want to congratulate the House of Lords on the remarkable task that it has performed in examining the Bill, and I think that in doing so it has greately improved it. Secondly, I want to draw attention to aspects that need to receive greater study in Committee.
  It is our purpose on this side of the House to further the progress of the Bill

  1447
  to Royal Assent in every possible way. I cannot see much purpose in reopening a number of matters of a slightly contentious nature that have already resulted in a compromise agreement between parties outside Parliament. Clearly, though, some of the contentious matters will be touched upon in Committee.
  Nor do we need to have a complete repetition of the many debates that have already taken place in the House of Lords. It is possible for Parliament to drown itself in an orgy of words. This is the first year in my 11 years in this House that I have not served on the Finance Bill Committee and the House will know, when it thinks of the Finance Bill Committee, what I mean by an orgy of words. In this case, perhaps we can swim peacefully towards Royal Assent, although there will be some points that we shall wish to raise in Committee.
  If the Minister can restrain himself from jumping up and down and being provocative during the course of this measure, we shall help him to get his legislation with the minimum of fuss. If, on the other hand, the Government decide to open up one end of any package agreement made in another place, we shall feel free to open up the other end. But as things are, I think that we can probably agree to the packages as they stand.
  My first task is to comment briefly on the work of the House of Lords. I know of no other recent measure about which we can say so emphatically that their examination has been thorough, detailed and conducted with considerable knowledge.
  Governments have tried to reform the House of Lords—normally unsuccessfully. Indeed, some noble Lords are not devoid of a passion to reform themselves. One must wonder a little at their reasons, because the other place in its recent behaviour has acted both as an excellent constitutional safeguard and, in the case of the Patents Bill, as a first-rate legislative Chamber. I wonder why we need to reform it at all. I appreciate that some Labour Ministers who pose as libertarians wish to abolish the House of Lords. Whatever criticisms Labour members may have of the House of Lords, on this occasion noble Lords have shown their undoubted experience and knowledge in an esoteric and specialised field.
  1448
  Throughout the passage of the Bill several noble Lords with a lifetime of experience in patents tabled amendments and made excellent speeches. I wish to refer particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Lyell. They commenced the passage of the Bill with only a limited knowledge of patents, but they impressed their friends with their application and dedication. Indeed, they astounded favourably many experts by the manner in which they conducted themselves in the debates on the Bill.
  The Bill is now before us, and I should like to make one cri de coeur. It is a simple admittance that the House of Commons seems, not unnaturally, to be rather devoid of the expertise that existed on this Bill in the House of Lords. Until last Thursday I was only vaguely aware of the world of patents—a specialised, complicated and technical subject. I regret to say that those of my hon. Friends who are competent in this subject are embroiled in the Criminal Law Bill and the Finance Bill, both of which are being dealt with upstairs. I hope that we may have the Government's co-operation—because we are anxious to hasten this Bill to Royal Assent—as to the starting date of the Bill in Committee, which is most important because we have a great deal of preparation to carry out. It will save a great deal of time if we are well prepared for the Committee Stage. Secondly, it would be helpful if some of the lawyers on this side of the House were free to give some assistance on this measure, which at the moment they are unable to do. I am not sure that the assistance of lawyers helps any measure to Royal Assent, but we could do with their presence just the same.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking of putting an advertisement in a local firm of stationers?
  Mr. Nott: We might try that as well. That kind of intervention is perfectly acceptable, and I am sure that it will not delay the Bill.
  I was tempted to embark on the history of this measure and its undoubted importance, but I shall not do so in view of the limited number of people who will read this debate—and those who do so will probably know all about the history of patents already. Therefore, as the Minister went through the history of the

  1449
  subject, I shall launch straight into the details of the Bill.
  It has become a matter of considerable urgency in the past few years for our patent law to be rewritten in such a way as to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European Patent Convention. The entire private sector in the patent system—the chartered patent agents, members of the Patent Bar and solicitors operating in patents—have been pressing for prompt legislation. In the United Kingdom, which has for many centuries been the cradle of the patent world, there has been strong concern that we should be the founder members of a European patent system.
  Those concerned with patents in many areas of activity have been deeply concerned that the United Kingdom should be party to the European system so that we could satisfy existing clients and potential new clients, especially those in the United States and Japan, that we would be able to act for them in securing European patents. If that were to happen, it would not be necessary for Americans and Japanese to channel their European patent work through patent professionals in Munich or elsewhere in the Federal Republic of Germany.
  The fact is that, despite some delays, we now have the Bill before us and there is little point in jobbing backwards. We are delighted that the Bill is in sight of becoming law. Undoubtedly, when it came to legislation those involved with drafting have been concerned with matters of tremendous complexity. There were the interwoven webs of four separate but inter-related patent systems; the national patent system, which was undergoing its greatest revision ever; the international system, under the Patent Co-operation Treaty, which was signed by about 46 countries in Washington in 1970; the European system under the European Patent Convention, which was eventually signed by 14 States in Munich; and the Community system, which the Nine had signed in Luxembourg in 1975.
  Clearly, the original drafting of the Bill had to be rushed. Rightly, it has been considerably rewritten during the first part of its parliamentary journey. It spent 11 days on the Floor of the House of Lords and involved 37 hours and over 16 weeks of work in the Upper Chamber.
  1450
  I am told that it earned the dubious honour of being the most amended Bill ever to have passed through that House in modern times.
  I was not entirely happy that we were expected to deal with this Bill today, Wednesday, when up to Monday morning, at least, the interested people outside the House of Commons had not seen a print of the Bill as introduced into this House. I am not even sure that they have now seen it.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Yes, they have.
  Mr. Nott: The Minister says that they have now seen a print, but that was certainly not the case the other day. It has not been circulating for more than a short period of time, and it has caused difficulties for interested parties outside the House because over 200 amendments were made in the upper House. However, I shall not dwell on that matter now.
  There is one problem which arose because of the inadequate initial drafting of the Bill. The measure which has now emerged from the other place is in very much better shape than when it was first published. Certain noble Lords were not entirely satisfied on some occasions when they tabled amendments that the Government tended to take the view "We wish you to withdraw the amendment because we are not happy with the drafting", but Government spokesmen in the other place did not, at the time say precisely what the Government wished to put in place of the withdrawn amendment. Therefore, in Committee we shall inquire in a number of cases involving complaints made in the other place about drafting, where no reason was given as to why the Government wished to withdraw the amendment and no explanation as to what was to be substituted.
  One such occasion arose when Lord Nelson sought to add a reference to the "marketing" of the product. The amendment was taken away for consideration by the Government, who came back at the next stage with the explanation—not that they took a certain view of the matter but that the parliamentary draftsman did so, namely that "marketing" was already subsumed within the reference to "working" in the Bill. We may want to consider that matter again. It is a drafting point perhaps, but there are a number of

  1451
  items of that sort which bother us and on which we shall wish to touch in Committee.
  Before I turn to other matters which we may want to look at in Committee, there is one more general point that I wish to make. It concerns the ratification and the eventual coming into operation of the European Patent Convention. We sent off the instrument of ratification on 3rd March. I believe that that made us the third country to send in such an instrument, only the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands having done so before we did. That is satisfactory. We are founder members, as befits our traditional position in the development of patent systems; and, unusually, ratification in this case was effected without our first bringing our domestic law into accord with that of the treaty we were ratifying. Instead, it was done on the strength of the Second Reading in another place.
  I hope that it is widely known and recognised that the official Opposition gave their agreement to this procedure, presuming that the eventual enactment would tie up with the ratified Convention. We are glad to have done so, but we are anxious to see total ratification as soon as possible. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can tell us when he thinks the European Patent Convention is likely to come into operation.
  I have some matters which I propose to raise in Committee, all of them arising out of points put by my noble Friends. Two of them in particular were directed to facilitating the obtaining of relatively inexpensive rulings on patent disputes. We were anxious that there should be, as far as possible, effective machinery available for disposing of matters in dispute without the necessary intervention of full dress High Court proceedings.
  In the Lords, there was the matter of res judicata or issue estoppel, which was raised in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading, Ministerial acquiescence being secured only at the last of those three stages. Our provision permits someone sued for patent infringement to defend himself even though he may earlier have unsuccessfully run his defence in an attempt to secure the revocation of the patent in proceedings at the Patent
  1452
  Office. This is important, for a prospective infringer of a patent which he believes to be invalid ought to feel free to attack that patent at the Patent Office level without fear of being left defenceless in High Court proceedings. In the event, as I have pointed out, the Government accepted on Third Reading the proposals my noble Friends had made on this point.
  The other point added to the Bill at my noble Friend's instance is the provision for infringement disputes to be taken to the Patent Office for settlement, on the agreement of both parties and without limitation as to the amount of damages that may be awarded to a successful patentee. There was a similar provision in the 1949 Act but there there was an upper limit of damages of £1,000 and it was not much used, probably due to that limitation on the amount of damages. This, again, is something to which we want to stick, and I believe that the Government will be happy that that should be so.
  There is, however, one aspect of that change at which we may wish to look in Committee, and that is whether it should not perhaps be extended so as to become available not only to patent owners but also to those who hold exclusive licences. I do not understand the procedures clearly as yet, but I believe that they are somewhat similar for those who hold exclusive licences as for those who hold patent rights.
  One of the greatest worries of my noble Friends, which was, indeed, equally a concern of the Government, was to see that there was no duality of standards as between the patent protection in the United Kingdom, which could be obtained by the national patent route, and that which could be obtained through other conventions.
  What has emerged on this occasion is the principle of legislating in a United Kingdom statute, not by writing in provisions which it is hoped will be found to correspond to those of a treaty but rather by incorporating by reference some of the words of such a treaty. The Under-Secretary of State said that we must draft our law in accordance with British law, but it will be interesting to see, in this somewhat novel procedure, if we draft details of foreign treaties into our law, using almost the same words, whether our

  1453
  courts are likely to find in a similar way to the courts overseas, because where the question of duality is concerned this is an interesting and important issue.
  I must apologise to the House, because this is not the most exciting speech that I have ever made.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): That is understandable.
  Mr. Nott: I am glad that the Solicitor-General understands it, because I must confess that sometimes I am a little concerned whether I do myself. But I have not far to go. I come now to rather more general issues.
  We are glad that the Government are not to seek to reintroduce the provision for the compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents, which was struck out of the Bill in another place. The Banks Committee had recommended clearly and unanimously that that discrimination against one of our industries should be repealed. The Conservative Government accepted that recommendation in November 1970, but, as we know, the present Government initially thought otherwise.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and I—and, I think, the pharmaceutical industry—were pleased indeed when the pharmaceutical industry was put on the same basis as other industries. We think that the Government are wise to have accepted the recommendation that Section 41 of the existing Patents Act should be repealed on the basis that Section 46 of that Act—the provision which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) invoked when he was Minister of Health—gives the Government all the protection they need against the abuse of patent rights by a private company in face of Government interests.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford stated in November last that the Government had no need to retain Section 41, which I am sure was seen by the industry as a very severe threat to the integrity of a patent which it might wish to register. Since there is enormous investment in research by the pharmaceutical industry, I am sure that the agreement that has now been reached—I have been given the details of it today—is a happy one, and I hope
  1454
  that there will be no attempt in Committee to dislodge it. I am sure that that will not be attempted.
  There are many other points on which our views elsewhere were accepted, and as they are a matter of record and as time is limited, I shall not go into all of them now. Suffice to say that we are glad to have secured a right of appeal from decisions of the Patent Office in regard to the dates to be attributed to patent applications, to have secured a right of privilege for clients' communications with their Scottish patent agents or other representatives in Scotland, and to have secured some protection for agreements between employers and employees regarding the protection of the confidentiality of inventors and other information which might be available within companies.
  It is extraordinary that the Bill as originally drafted should have allowed employees to reveal secrets of their own firms, and we are relieved that Lord Nelson's amendment putting the matter right was incorporated in the Bill. I imagine that the omission was an oversight in the first place rather than anything else.
  There are one or two other matters about which we may want to look in Committee and which may, in the minds of the Government, lie within the realm of controversy. The official Opposition in the other place forced only one Division—on the question of whether an applicant for a patent may continue, as in the past, to feel free to publish or use his invention as disclosed in his patent application just as soon as he has lodged his patent application. I know from my business experience that the ability to carry on as soon as a patent is lodged is a most important issue and I am glad that my noble Friends divided on the matter. Again, I imagine that the Government will not seek to change the position back.
  There is the whole area of statutory codification of the law governing the ownership of inventions made by employees and the provision of a statutory award system. I believe that Banks recommended against any statutory scheme and in favour of voluntary schemes. I am aware that there have been differences of views with regard to employees' inventions, but in my view

  1455
  what has emerged is probably a reasonable compromise. It is in the nature of a package agreement, and although we shall wish to have a debate in Committee, I personally would not wish to open up one part of this package and to throw the whole rather controversial subject into debate again. The view seems to have got about—I have been asked to say this—that the statutory provisions in the Bill on employees' rights were recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on Patents. My information is that the Standing Advisory Committtee did not favour a statutory scheme but that a working party selected from among its members was asked to try to agree what should be contained in such a statutory scheme on the basis that the Secretary of State for Trade, following Cabinet discussions, had laid down that there was to be a statutory provision notwithstanding Banks.
  Perhaps I need only say that the compromise arrangements look susceptible to misunderstanding and possible disagreements within firms and that the proposal will probably have to be looked upon as somewhat on a trial basis. Although we shall wish to debate this, we do not want to open up the whole area again. But I am told by people who work within the industry—I know there is concern among employers—that conflict could be set up within firms. We therefore must regard this proposal as being on somewhat of a trial basis.
  Upstairs we may also want to look at the clause dealing with the termination of patent licences on the termination of the patents with which they are concerned. We are not satisfied that if such a clause is retained at all it should extend not only to terminate the licence under the expired patents but also to terminate any know-how licence and any licence under corresponding foreign patents which may continue in force. That does not mean much to me, but I hope that it will mean something to the officials when they read it in Hansard tomorrow morning. It is purely a warning of what we intend to raise in Committee when we understand it.
  Another matter that we shall need to raise is whether the provision regarding restrictive covenants in patent licences should or should not permit a licensor to
  1456
  require that for quality purposes any un-patented ingredient of a stipulated purity or other specification should be employed notwithstanding that for the time being that raw material can be obtained only from the licensor or among United Kingdom suppliers. That is obviously crystal-clear to the House and I need not elaborate any further.
  I now turn to an important point on which there is some disagreement. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may want to take up the question whether chartered patent agents qualified to practise before the European Patent Office should be better enabled by legislation to call themselves European Patent Attorneys in parallel with the usage in Germany and elsewhere. I know that the Solicitor-General will be saying a few words at the end of the debate. I want to express my own personal prejudice in this regard. I happen to be a qualified barrister never having practised, which is worse than not being one at all. I personally would not wish to see professional bodies—I am referring to the Law Society—which are understandably conscious of their members' interests and seeking to protect them, use their position to restrict the activity of other professionals. I refer to patent agents who by calling themselves attorneys thereby might more easily obtain business to compete with overseas patent agents, because it is in everyone's interests that our patent agents should obtain the maximum amount of foreign business.
  It seems to me that it will help them if they can call themselves European Patent Attorneys. I understand that the legal position is relatively clear—that there is no exclusive right held by others which prevents them from calling themselves attorneys. That seems to be the legal position. But there has been uncertainty about it and, of course, we are talking about them calling themselves attorneys when practising abroad.
  We shall listen carefully and sympathetically to what the Government spokesman may say with regard to the possible reinstatement of clauses concerning information prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public.
  I now turn to the most difficult of all the matters still outstanding and that is the whole question of the two and five year periods. The Opposition will want

  1457
  to see whether the Government decide to put forward a modification to the latest proposed for the life of old patents—patents granted under the old Act. Assuming that some of these should be given the possibility of continuing for up to 20 years, instead of up to 16 years, should this apply only to those having five or more years to run, or to those havink two or more years to run, or to some other tranche of old Act patents?
  In the Lords the Government came forward rather abruptly with an amendment to insert a five-year period, but the Liberal peer, Lord Lloyd, forced an amendment and we now have a two-year arrangement in the Bill. There is a difference of view on this matter. There are some interests in industry that would like to see a return to five years but there are other interests that would like to leave the Bill as it now stands. I understand that the Under-Secretary will have a meeting about this to try to resolve the conflict. I do not know whether it is resolvable, but for my part I shall be happy if some compromise agreement can be arrived at which satisfies all parties. It may be the case that agreement cannot be reached outside the House but for the time being the Opposition will retain an open position on this matter.
  I opened with a passing reference to the haste with which this legislation had to be prepared. I close by expressing the hope that the formulation of the rules to be made under this legislation should not be correspondingly rushed. They will also necessarily be very complex and the authorities will want to consult the expert practitioners outside as they have done to such good advantage with this legislation.
  I apologise to the House for going on for rather a long time. I have not covered all the points. There are a number of other matters that we may wish to touch upon in Committee, but, as I have said, we shall try to narrow down the amendments that we table to relatively few. We are not seeking to have any very lengthy debates in Committee. We do not wish to go over all the old ground again. It really will be very much in the Government's hands as to how long we have to spend upstairs, because I would anticipate that the Government are likely to table many more amendments than we ourselves.
  1458
  So, on this important and extremely technical and complicated piece of legislation, we shall do our best to master the outstanding issues by the time it reaches Committee, and I hope that there we can discuss in greater detail some of the points that I have touched on today.
  6 p.m.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: After the erudite and able way in which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) wove his way through the 126 clauses of the Bill, I regret to have to disappoint him on two counts. First, I intend to return to the contentious aspects of the Bill. Secondly, I have to tell him that he overrates his colleagues in the House if he believes that we are all experts in patent law. I am not an expert in patent or any other law. I find the whole process of wading through Acts of Parliament formidable and scaring at times, and I am grateful for the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench can from time to time put me right on matters which I find it difficult to understand.
  Perhaps I may say one thing in mitigation. The hon. Gentleman asked that we should not indulge in an orgy of words, and I can assure him that I am not one of the most loquacious Members of the House.
  I wish to refer to the missing clause, Clause 49, which was deleted in another place. Hon. Members will know that my interest is mainly in the provision of health care under the National Health Service. Clause 49 was simply a replacement of Section 41 in the original Act. That dealt with the whole way in which the pharmaceutical industry and others engaged in making similar products could be protected. The pharmaceutical industry has a large research and development programme and there has to be some protection for the investment that companies put into that.
  It is 10 years since the Banks Committee was first set up. It takes some time to get legislation through this House. Those of us who concern ourselves with health matters were naturally interested to know what would happen to Section 41 in the new Bill. My anger at the elimination of Clause 49 by the other place has been tempered somewhat by the voluntary

  1459
  agreement reached between the industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. But I am still not entirely satisfied. I have had a great deal of experience of voluntary agreements in industry. It goes back over a long period and covers the voluntary price regulation scheme for pharmaceuticals and the schemes that preceded it. Under such schemes those who are seeking to negotiate a good deal for the taxpayer always seem to come off second best.
  I have a love-hate relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Look at the way in which modern drugs kill pain and heal the sick. We should consider the classic case of the elimination of tuberculosis. Without drugs that would never have happened. Consider the part that drugs play in any major operation. Consider also the fact that 46 per cent. of hospital beds are occupied by those suffering from mental illness or disability and the part played by drugs there. Consider how, for example, the whole scene on epilepsy has been transformed. All this is due to the research carried out by the pharmaceutical industry. That is the love side of the relationship.
  When an industry has done so much good, however, there is inevitably a reaction against what appears to be excessive profit-making by that industry. I fear that as a result of eliminating Clause 49, excessive prices might be charged. The hon. Member for St. Ives touched on the subject and pointed out that the Secretary of State for Social Services had other weapons in his armoury. Only last Sunday, however, there was a report in the Observer describing how the taxpayer was paying three times the correct price for a particular drug. I hope that we shall look further into this matter in Committee. I concede that the Banks Committee recommended that the provisions of Clause 49 should go.
  Various Ministers of Health have sought over the years to contain the drugs bill in the National Health Service. Strangely enough, the only Minister to have any marked success was the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who invoked the Patents Act and succeeded dramatically in reducing excessive profits on drugs. Since then, Ministers on both sides have been asked to do
  1460
  something to contain the £500 million that the taxpayer pays for drugs. I am convinced that, good as the agreement with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has been, it is not good enough. Often the taxpayer has had to pay out large sums as a result of the way in which research has been used, not to find a new drug to do a new job but to produce a new variation of an old drug which enables another company to enter the competition and make a profit.
  I think that I am alone in this House in believing that health care should be taken out of the market place. People who do the research should be paid an adequate reward for their services, as should the doctors, nurses, consultants and others. Perhaps I am a little puritanical in believing that it is not right at any time to make a profit out of those who are sick or disabled, any more than it would be right to make a profit from selling white sticks to blind men.
  We therefore have a commercial situation on the one hand and the compassionate care of the sick on the other. Therefore, the Government should have the strongest possible weapons for dealing with profiteering. Although the Government might not be anxious to use Clause 49, it should be at their disposal, because without it the pharmaceutical industry has another advantage in the negotiations.
  I am concerned about another point relating to Clause 2 and its effect on the pharmaceutical industry. Before the Banks Report there was the Sainsbury Report. That first report stated—the situation has not altered a great deal since then—that of all the drugs purchased by the NHS, 49 per cent. were produced by American companies and only 23 per cent. by companies based in Britain. Therefore, the way in which the Bill will operate on the international scene and the new arrangements provided in Clause 2 will have a special bearing on the price we are likely to pay for drugs.
  The voluntary price regulation scheme partly provides that in fixing a price attention must be paid to the price which is charged overseas. Therefore a strengthening of the patent arrangements which exist between this country and others could benefit British users of drugs which are produced by the multinationals.

  1461
  During our Common Market debates it was suggested from both sides that the EEC might enable us more effectively to contain multinational companies—some of which have bigger budgets than some member countries of the United Nations—than individual States were able to do. Clause 2 extends some of these powers and therefore I welcome it.
  I hope that the fact that this concession has been given to the pharmaceutical industry and that their Lordships' amendment has been accepted will not encourage their Lordships to think that they have been given the green light to interfere with legislation from this House whenever they like. Secondly, I hope that it will not mean that the arrangements being made, recently announced by the Secretary of State—which will be closely scrutinised by many of us—will be affected by the elimination of the original Clause 49.
  In the main, I commend the Bill to the House. It makes a long-overdue reorganisation of the original Act. I do not envy the lawyers who have had to draft it or those who will have to interpret it. As I have said, I shall be grateful to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have far more knowledge of these matters than I shall ever have if they will take on their shoulders the responsibility for everything save the matter in which I am interested, since I am totally incapable of taking it on myself.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in debate. He has often followed me in debate and has made the same kind of smooth and happy remark, but it is a genuine pleasure. So often we follow each other in fundamental disagreement, but never in any spirit of animosity. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's views on health care.
  Mr. Pavitt: That respect is reciprocated.
  Mr. Crouch: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
  I declare an interest at the outset. As the hon. Gentleman and, I think, most of the House know, I am very much involved in the pharmaceutical industry.
  1462
  The Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) have made this rather dry Bill as interesting as any two Front Bench speakers could have done, and I congratulate them both. Several times during their speeches I found occasion to smile, but I do not think that the House will burst into laughter on many occasions during my speech. I recognise that I am treading on rather thin ice. When I first came to the House, I was often asked by the Whips to come and speak on any subject. I was told that I could learn what to say by studying what their Lordships had said in another place. It was only after I had been a Member for some time that I realised that the Whips thought that I was a lawyer and that I was therefore able to pick up a brief at the drop of a hat. However I am not a lawyer, and I find this a difficult subject to which to address myself.
  I listened to the debate in the Lords on a number of occasions, and I was interested in the Lord Chancellor's speech on Second Reading, because part of what he said touched on my own experience. He spoke about the importance of the Bill and generally about industry in this country, which is highly innovative and which relies heavily on patents for protection so that firms can enjoy the benefits of innovation and invention. The Lord Chancellor explained that this was why it was necessary to upgrade the patent law, which had become somewhat out of date; hence the need for this Bill.
  The Lord Chancellor mentioned the man-made fibre industry, in which I used to work many years ago. He said that this was an industry that had benefited greatly from the operation of the Patents Act as a result of inventions that had earned a great deal of money for this country and had enabled a number of firms to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in certain developments, such as nylon and particularly terylene, which is polyester fibre, the product with which I used to be associated.
  I am interested to see that certain clauses relate to the question of who owns a patent or invention. Under the 1949 Act—and as is still proposed by this Bill—it is the employer who has the right to an invention developed by a research chemist, research physicist or anyone else in his employ. Some new light is shed on

  1463
  this problem—perhaps light at the end of the tunnel—to help employees who have the job of seeking out inventions and finding new projects. There is now some promise of reward for people who do such work and who often make remarkable discoveries.
  I worked in the early 1950s with one of the most distinguished inventors that we have ever had in this country. He invented an entirely new product. He did not regenerate something but created a new molecular structure, polyester fibre, which was a British invention. He did this whole working in Accrington, Lancashire, for a company called the Calico Printers Association.
  He had been working for 20 years in pursuit of this development. He told me that he had the idea of developing a new structure and a new fibre because he had worked after the First World War with one of the original inventors of viscose rayon. Many people claim to have invented viscose rayon, but he had worked with the firm of research chemists in High Holborn which had done it.
  He did this after coming down from Cambridge, where he had had a distinguished career, and he was so excited at having worked with some chemists who had succeeded in breaking such a barrier in the early 1920s that he decided that he would like to do the same. Exactly 20 years later in Accrington he created a new molecular structure, which we call terylene and which is known throughout the world as polyester fibre.
  Investment in this one invention has totalled thousands of millions of pounds. It has been of great benefit to this country, not merely to the company concerned and others associated with the original company. The royalties coming in as a result of patent protection have been very great, and of great benefit to this country in bringing in money from overseas.
  The name of that man, who is now dead, was John Rex Whinfìeld, who was well known in Lancashire and in the synthetic fibre industry. The patent rights in this country for his invention were obtained by ICI, for which I used to work. I remember the occasion when we launched the product and had a great Press conference attended by 200 or
  1464
  300 journalists. I cannot remember whether it was Marjorie Proops or some other well-known Fleet Street journalist, but someone asked Mr. Whinfield "Well, what have you got out of this?" He held up his glass and replied "A large pink gin". He was not ill-treated by his company. In fact, he was generously treated, and he had the satisfaction of doing an interesting job and knowing that he had created something of such a worthwhile nature. However, I was very struck by his remark and the fact that he had nothing out of his invention except the way of life that he was able to enjoy, which was not that of a rich man.
  I am glad that in Clauses 36 to 40 there is some recognition of the need to upgrade the relationship between the employee and the employer in this matter of innovation and reward. What I have just said was purely by the way. I do not want to detain the House, but I thought that it was rather an important byway.
  I suppose that I am treading on ground that is not really my own. Today is an occasion for the experts and the patent lawyers, but the House is thin on patent lawyers, although not so thin on learned Members in general. However, although my hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary may say that the Bill is dull and dry, it is not a Bill only for patent lawyers. It affects all of us. It concerns health care. It affects everyone in the country, because it is an essential part of sustaining industry and protecting people.
  I wish to say something on a matter touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, the 20-year term proposed in the Bill to replace the present 16-year term. It is absolutely right that the term of a patent should be increased by four years. How the figure of 20 years rather than 16 years arose is neither here nor there. It is an arbitrary figure, but it is right. It is in line with the European period for the life of a patent. I maintain that the 20-year period is one of the major planks in the platform on which the Bill rests.
  In the other place the Government wanted to limit the opportunity of existing patent holders to enjoy the benefit of this advance to 20 years in a way which I shall describe. It is known as the five-year rule.

  1465
  The Bill was amended by an amendment proposed by Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, a distinguished patent lawyer who played a great part in steering the Bill through its interesting passage in the other place. I believe that he corrected this error, again with an arbitrary figure.
  The noble Lord removed the parsimony with which the Government had treated existing patent holders by saying that it was not right to deny the benefit of this decision to those who already had patents that had been running for some years. The Government suggested that new patents should last for 20 years but that existing patent holders should not enjoy that benefit if their patents had been running for a certain number of years.
  Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran removed that element of parsimony to some extent by proposing and having accepted an amendment permitting existing patent holders to enjoy the extra four years provided that their patents had not been running for more than 14 years of the present 16-year life of patents. I think that I have it right. The Government originally wanted to limit this benefit to patents that had not run for more than 11 years. There was an age gap of three years between the Government's original intention and the amendment and the Bill as it now is. Their Lordships wisely recognised the need to bridge that gap. They did not go all the way—there is a reason for that—but they granted another three years' patent life.
  This is an important point. Perhaps we should not make this protest. Methinks that I "doth protest too much" about it. It may be that I am pushing at an open door. However, Second Reading provides the opportunity to express a welcome for the Bill and to go over some of the interesting arguments in the other place.
  The Bill establishes the term of a patent as being 20 years. It is a recognition of the need for a longer period in which to work a patent. I think that point is universally accepted. It applies particularly to areas where research is expensive and long. One such area—there are others—is the area of which I have particular knowledge—the pharmaceutical industry.
  I listened most carefully to the hon. Member for Brent, South and I made
  1466
  some notes. The hon. Gentleman is anxious that the Government—they are 95 per cent. the customer of the pharmaceutical industry—should have the ultimate weapon to hold down prices. Rightly, he cannot stomach any more than I can profits being made out of the sick.
  In politics and in Government there are many difficulties. Logic does not always apply. However, there must be a moral judgment. There can be no question of making profit out of the sick. But, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the pharmaceutical industry must advance if it is to continue.
  Britain has one of the most advanced, innovative and inventive pharmaceutical industries in the world. We are lucky. It is a young industry, but it has developed rapidly. Many of the participants in the industry in this country are not British. They come here to enjoy the enormous background and back-up of a scientific and medical base that enables the complicated science of pharmaceuticals to develop.
  We do not have a lot of copyists. We have an innovative and expanding industry that is contributing considerably to our export earnings. In this country drugs are carefully monitored by the Medicines Commission. They go through Government controls of absolute strictness. That is essential, as we have learned during recent years. Having gone through those controls, a drug is seen to be a successful breakthrough, a cure for disease, and it can find markets all over the world, whether it be for animal or other general health care.
  Mr. Pavitt: I agree that is in our own self-interest and to the advantage of our balance of payments for every industry to export as much as possible. However, has the hon. Gentleman seen the results of exports of pharmaceuticals to developing countries in the Third World? Some of the effects have been disadvantageous. They have been advantageous to us because of the exports, but disadvantageous to people there because of the consequences for their health.
  Mr. Crouch: These features must be carefully watched. I should be the first to subscribe to the argument that they should be watched. Drugs should not be misused.

  1467
  I do not want to go into another type of debate, but I have usually seen drugs being misused only in countries which can afford to over-prescribe. There are many countries, even in the developing world, where the top echelons of society tend to over-prescribe. That is a waste of valuable drugs. Strangely enough, it does not happen in this country.
  It was wrong in the past to have a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry by virtue of Section 41 of the Patents Act. It would have been wrong to leave the original Clause 49 in the Bill. There is a better, though not necessarily more comfortable, way for the Government to exercise the control that they obviously need to have over the pharmaceutical industry because, as I said, they are the major customer. That is by negotiation between the Minister and the industry. It is called voluntary negotiation. But, let us make no mistake about it, it is voluntary if one wants to stay in business.
  The Government have control over the prices that can be charged. They can encourage the development of a drug and its use by general practitioners, hospitals and pharmacists. There are many levers of control in the Government's hands which are understood and recognised by the industry. However, the industry is saying that, if the Government hold the threat above it of a clause which provides that, at the drop of a hat or the whim of a Minister, they might open the gates by making patents available to others who can come in and enjoy the big market, the innovative side of the industry will pack its bags and leave this country.
  Many pharmaceutical companies are multinational. It is as easy to develop research in Calais as in Dover. It is easy for them to go to Germany, where there is just as good an educational back-up as in this country. Indeed, in some smaller countries—the Netherlands and Denmark, and even Belgium—there is a sufficiently good educational back-up to encourage the taking of a complete research department of several hundred scientists and establishing it there.
  The company in which I am interested is an American one. It has recently shown confidence in Britain by enlarging its research base in this country. It has become the second biggest research
  1468
  department in the world, including those of all the multinational companies. It is second in size to only an operation in the United States and it employs about 500 people in this country, 75 per cent. of whom are graduates.
  That shows a respect for the opportunity that exists in this country to develop products that will be sold world-wide, and it also shows respect for the fact that there is sufficient patent protection in this country to make it a worthwhile investment. This is not meant to be a commercial break but I wanted to answer the point.
  In connection with this industry I want to refer to the extension of patent life in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Perhaps I am nit picking, but the pharmaceutical industry is much concerned with the length of life of a patent. With many products, once one has filed one's application for patent, one may go into production within a year, but that is not so in the pharmaceutical industry. The average time is six years and it may be as long as 10 years before a product is on the market, because it must be tested by the Government and pathological and scientific tests must be completed before such a product may be sold.
  Even if the average is only eight years, that means that eight years of patent life are lost before the company has a chance to start earning and selling its invention in this country or abroad. The adoption of new inventions in pharmaceuticals is often slow and properly cautious. The real length of time during which the patent owner can enjoy and receive the benefits of his achievement and recoup his vast expenditure must be far less than the total 16 years, and it is probably more like half that period. The Government have now said that when the Bill becomes law all patents should be extended to 20 years.
  The expenditure on pharmaceutical research today is staggering. I have looked at figures and they are measured not in tens of thousands of pounds but in millions of pounds. It is impossible to give exact figures, because they vary between different places and products. However, in the United States in 1972—and that was some time ago—it was estimated that the research and development cost of a new drug was about £14

  1469
  million. Even if we spend only half of that, the sum is £7 million or £8 million. For all those reasons existing patents should be allowed an extension of up to 20 years or as near as possible to that.
  The Bill provides some fairness for the licensees of existing patents. Schedule 1(2)(b) states clearly that the licensee will not be required to pay for loyalties for this extended period. I am glad about that. Schedule 1(4) says that any person who feels that he may suffer loss as a result of the extension may apply to the court for relief. I welcome that. A person may have provided the capacity and plans for a project, anticipating a 16-year life for it, only to have his efforts frustrated by that life being extended to 20 years. It is right that such people should be so protected.
  The Bill is a most valuable measure as it has been amended by the Lords and I hope that we shall not tamper with the decisions of the Lords in this respect.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in speaking about the former Clause 49, which was dropped while the Bill was in the Lords. I hope that that matter will be ventilated in Committee.
  The Minister in a concise speech has eloquently described the two separate labours that combined to produce the Bill. There was an attempt to harmonise our patent law with the European Patent Convention. There was a separate task—which it was almost Herculean to combine with the first in the same Bill—of making substantial and welcome reforms in our domestic patent law, especially with regard to the rights of employees. Therefore, from the Liberal Benches, I generally welcome the Bill.
  However, there is a danger that is always associated with terrific tasks. It is that in attempting so much there may be some failures. While I do not wish to adopt a crabby tone to the Bill, I am sure that the House will understand that I wish to concentrate on the issues that have given rise to some concern in my party.
  It is unfortunate, but thoroughly understandable, that this substantial measure does not substantially simplify the
  1470
  elaborate and extremely expensive legal procedures associated with the operation of our patent law. As a result of inflation, the costs of patent litigation are quite horrific and they are usually counted in tens of thousands of pounds. We are not satisfied that appeals before the Comptroller-General instead of a court will necessarily be cheaper. They may be cheaper than appearing before the full panoply of the court, but we still await firm evidence that these procedures will really be cheap.
  As long as patent law remains extremely expensive to bring into operation on behalf of an innovator or inventor, there will be substantial discouragement of something that is urgently needed in this country—the spirit of innovation. There is undoubtedly much advice that is soundly given by' patent lawyers to innovators—pointing out that the whole legal procedure is so expensive and cumbersome and that there are few robust decisions handed down in this sphere.
  Innovators are told that they are better off to trust to secrecy and to exploit their inventions quickly before the rest of the world catches up. For that reason the tremendous efforts that have been put into the reform of the law will not be brought into fruitful operation in a sufficient number of instances.
  I was disturbed by the hints which I understood the Minister to be giving about the amendment successfully moved in the Lords on Third Reading by Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It would reasonably extend the concept of the 20-year life of a patent to patents already in operation before the appointed day. The Minister seemed to be suggesting that the Government were having second thoughts about keeping that amedment in the Bill. We would strongly resist any attempt to tamper with the wise decision made in the Lords. I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Canterbury in that.
  I now wish to refer to the protection given to employee inventors. Clause 36 to 41 represent a notable advance and the Government are to be congratulated on telling the working party the attitude that it should adopt, instead of tamely waiting for outside bodies—in what has increasingly become the corporate State in this country—to tell Parliament what they want to be enacted.

  1471
  The cart has at last been put behind the horse, and that is welcomed. Employee inventors, especially those who are not required by their contracts of employment to give their minds to inventing but who happen to be interested in what they are doing and who hit upon a bright practical idea in the course of employment not in the research department, should be provided with expeditious and reasonably inexpensive procedures so that the whole of their life savings are not put at risk in litigation.
  About three-quarters of all patented inventions come from employees. Many are employed for the purpose of making inventions, but there is in our skilled work force a great pride in devising something new, and anyone who represents an engineering constituency cannot fail to be aware of that element, which is still very much alive in this country.
  Neither the Comptroller-General of Patents nor judges qualify by temperament or training to adjudicate compensation in these matters. Through no fault of their own they are almost invariably unable to put themselves into the shop floor situation that is the essence of these cases.
  It has to be decided how far an invention is a result of the surroundings and equipment provided by the company and how far it is because of the sheer application, skill and imagination of the employee. The sort of questions upon which the Bill requires the court or the Comptroller-General to adjudicate are not matters well suited to judges or the Comptroller-General.
  For example, the court has to decide whether an invention is of outstanding benefit to the employer. I doubt whether the word "outstanding" means very much anyway, but I am sure that this is not a matter that judges should be left to assess. The court will have to decide whether, by reason of all the circumstances of the case, it is just that the employee should be compensated. This is a matter on which business men and trade unionists, who have been involved in these matters all their working lives, are competent to hand down robust and prompt judgments, instead of an employee having to wait months for a laborious judgment to come from the Comptroller-General leaving both sides thoroughly dissatisfied.
  1472
  We hope that a development at which the Under-Secretary hinted but which he did not elaborate fully, namely, the establishment of a panel of outside advisers with working experience in this area, will be introduced into the Bill. If it is considered that the Comptroller-General must be retained in an adjudicating position, we hope he will always sit with the outside advisers and that they will constitute an assessment panel.
  I doubt whether this is a job for the Comptroller-General at all and I should prefer the chairman of the panel to be recruited from one of the legal professions. Whatever happens, there must be outside advisers and they must have an expeditious procedure. We see no reason to allow an appeal on points of fact, and the advisers will be able to hand down prompt and robust decisions.
  The precedent that I cite is the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, which sat so successfully for some years after the war to deal with the claims of war-time inventors. That Commission sat without full judicial procedure and there was no appeal from its judgment. It handed down decisions that were generally acceptable and certainly robust and it enabled business to be transacted expeditiously.
  There are a number of other subjects that we should like to discuss in Committee and I shall not follow the example of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in outlining them now. We wish the Bill well. We are glad that the TUC has made representations along similar lines to those that I have tried to express in great haste, and I hope that they will receive fair attention in Committee.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): This has been a good debate. Inevitably it has been a technical one and, for that reason, I suspect that its merits may not be widely acclaimed. I have always hoped that in debates that tend to be dominated by lawyers there would be contributions, such as those that we have had today, from our lay colleagues with expertise in the matter being discussed.
  When lawyers discuss reform of the law, they are not doing it for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their clients—the public. But not every provision in

  1473
  the Bill necessarily lends itself to sturdy generalisation and our lay colleagues who may serve on the Committee that considers the Bill have my sympathy.
  There are some matters on which opinions differ, but it is clear from the debate that there are some on which there is no difference between us. I think that we all agree on the value of having a system of patents to provide incentive for research and invention. We all agree that the problem is in preserving a balance between an adequate incentive for those who invent and a protection of the proper interests of the public.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), that if one seeks to be fair to everyone in these complicated matters, that will inevitably lead to provisions that are somtimes slow and expensive to administer. But we have to try to get a balance in that respect, too, and that will be our aim in Committee. Incidentally, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley for confining his remarks within so narrow a compass and thus allowing me time to reply.
  I hope, too, that we all agree that everyone will benefit if we can harmonise the system of patents in our domestic law with the systems in other commercial countries, particularly in Europe. I welcome the assurance of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) that there is no division between us on the need to steer this Bill on to the statute book at the earliest possible moment.
  The hon. Gentleman said that it was a much amended Bill, and I take his point that we have reason to be grateful for the attention that it received in another place. I shall follow him no further along the road he travelled after saying that, except to note that when the account is finally made up, the proceedings on this Bill will be chalked on the credit side.
  It was much amended for the reason he gave. It was necessary for us to ratify the European Patent Convention as soon as possible and I am grateful for the assistance the Government received from the Opposition in doing that. This was why the consultations that normally precede such a Bill were necessarily briefer than usual, and for that reason it was necessary for the Bill to receive the detailed attention devoted to it in another place.
  1474
  The hon. Member for St. Ives asked when the convention was likely to be operative. We are awaiting only the ratification of France, and it is hoped that that will be given shortly and that the European Patent Office will be established by the autumn and be receiving applications by June 1978. The House will be pleased to know that a number of important posts in the Patent Office have been assigned to personnel from the United Kingdom. The vice-president in charge of examination and opposition will be Mr. W. W. Wallace, who is a distinguished member of our Patent Office. We are pleased to see him here today.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not reply to all the issues raised in the debate. Some hon. Members said that they were simply giving notice that they would raise certain matters at a later stage.
  There are four obvious reasons why I cannot reply in detail. First, this has necessarily been a brief debate. I have less time left to me than some hon. Members have taken. Secondly, I have discovered from experience that when lawyers take up the time of the House on technical matters, the reaction of other hon. Members includes a certain amount of irritation. Thirdly, if we do discuss technical matters, we must get them right. I claim no expertise in this branch of the law. The House does not share the expertise available in another place, and I do not claim to remedy that defect. Fourthly, much attention was given to these matters at an earlier stage of the Bill. Hon. Members will already be aware of the arguments.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke of the problems of draftsmanship when legislating to bring United Kingdom law into accord with the law of the European Community, with an international convention—as we are here—or with that of other countries generally. I pay tribute to the way in which the draftsman has approached that task.
  He has achieved the result in three ways: first, where possible by adopting the terms used in the convention; secondly, by giving guidance to the courts about the intention of the draftsman—an example of that is in Clause 124(7)—thirdly, he has incorporated some of the provisions of the convention directly into United Kingdom law, as in Clause 83.

  1475
  I commend the way in which the draftsman has approached the problem. I accept that he might have given some problems to the courts, but they will not be beyond the capacity of the courts to solve.
  A matter which occupied much of the time of the debate was the five-year rule on the extension of the period of validity. Obviously, it is a matter in which we must balance the interests of the inventors against those of the public. The solution originally in the Bill was that proposed by the Standing Advisory Committee. I appreciate that there may be commercial companies that plan their arrangements on the basis that a patent will terminate on a certain date and invest accordingly. I admit that we are proposing to legislate retrospectively, and that might have an adverse effect, not upon the inventors, but on others. And of course, it takes longer these days to recover development costs.
  I understand that there will be a meeting tomorrow with the Standing Advisory Committee. The Government's concern is simply to see that the solution reached is regarded as satisfactory by as many as possible of the interests concerned.
  We have had a mini-debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). The House and the public owe a great deal to the expertise and the attention that they have given to this subject over a number of years.
  The 1949 Act provided a procedure for the compulsory grant of licences in respect of patents for medicines. That was disliked by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Banks Committee recommended its removal. But, after consultations, Clause 49 of the Bill was included. It was removed in another place and agreement has now been reached with the pharmaceutical industry, so the legislative history will rest there. That may not satisfy my hon. Friend. It is a matter of judgment whether one acts more effectively by including something in a statute or by reaching an agreement. I cannot say more than that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South mentioned a case in which excessive
  1476
  prices were charged. If it is the case I have in mind, they did not result from a patent problem. The case was concerned with people who were buying up and repackaging someone else's inventions, and selling them at an inflated price.
  I turn now to the question of employee inventors. There is a great deal I should like to say on that subject, and I can no doubt return to it in Committee. It is a matter on which I feel more emotional than on some of the other questions, because my father was a victim of the present law on more than one occasion.
  I welcomed the confirmation by the hon. Member for Canterbury that the present law is unsatisfactory and that something must be done. I appreciate that it will always be possible to improve on a package. But I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley will appreciate that it is a package that takes account of the interests of all those concerned.
  As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, if we start removing particular bricks from the package we might reopen it to a point where it may not be acceptable to many of those who have indicated agreement. Obviously, the package is not sacrosanct, and it can be reconsidered in Committee. But we should be reluctant to reopen something—
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Can the the Solicitor-General confirm that the judges are not one of the interests involved?
  The Solicitor-General: The method of assessing these matters may include some of the elements involved. But I do not wish to discourage the hon. Member from commenting on these matters.
  I turn to the title "European Patent Attorney". The question is whether, on the one hand, the public are likely to be misled by the use of the term, bearing in mind that what is proposed is only the use of the word in the complete phrase, "European patent attorney". If so, does the danger outweigh the difficulty of the patent agents' profession in not being able to take advantage of a term the equivalent of which is in use in other countries? The Law Society is still considering the matter. But I am told that

  1477
  its provisional view is that it is a question of balancing the interests, and that it is prepared to leave it to those who debate the Bill to see where that balance lies.
  I should have liked to have said a great deal more. I shall not conclude with a peroration, not even with a funny story. My greatest contribution will be to attempt clarity on the legal issues. We may not find that we have written a chapter in parliamentary history, but it is a Bill, as the hon. Member for Canterbury said, that affects everyone, that will be of real benefit to commerce, and that benefit will be reflected in better living standards for the public as a whole.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40(Committal of Bills).

PATENTS [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a new law of patents applicable to future patents and applications for patents, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following sums:

(a)any sums required for making payments under that Act to proprietors of patents or other persons in respect of the working or use of inventions by or with the authority of a government department;

(b)any sums required for making payments of compensation under that Act to applicants for patents who suffer hardship by reason of directions given under that Act for prohibiting or restricting the publication of information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public;

(c)any sums required for the payment of remuneration to scientific advisers appointed to assist the Patents Court constituted under that Act, to assessors appointed to assist the Court of Session in proceedings under that Act and to advisers appointed to assist the comptroller in proceedings before him;

(d)any sums required by any Minister of the Crown or government department to meet any financial obligation of the United Kingdom under the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention or the Patent Co-operation Treaty;

1478

(e) any sums so required for the payment of compensation awarded to an employee of the Crown in respect of an invention made by him;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by any Minister of the Crown or government department in pursuance of the conventions or treaty mentioned in paragraph (l)(d) above.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have to inform the House that the Private Business does not commence until 7 o'clock. We shall therefore wait for a moment—until 7 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL (By Order)
  Lords amendments agreed to
  LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL (By Order)
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION, LIMITED BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

AGRICULTURE (HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]
7.1 p.m.
Mr. John Ellis: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise the subject of safety in agriculture and, in particular, the death of my constituent Saul Ben Randall.
I think that I can best put the House in the picture by describing what the Minister said to me in a letter after I had made inquiries about this matter. Giving the background of the matter, what he had to say was,
"on this particular farm young people were engaged to work on Saturdays on two tractor-drawn potato harvesting machines. They replaced teams of regular workers, employed from Monday to Friday, in order to complete

1479
harvesting delayed by adverse weather conditions. Before work began on the first Saturday the young people were divided into two teams of five. In each team four worked on the harvester and were instructed to pick out the stones which were being lifted with the potatoes. The fifth member of the team was instructed to follow the harvester and collect in a basket any potatoes which had fallen from the machine and tip them into the trailer travelling at the side of the harvester.
On the first Saturday work stopped after an hour owing to bad weather. Harvesting again took place on the following Saturday when before commencing work the tractor driver operating the harvester subsequently involved in the accident instructed four of the team of young people to carry out allotted tasks on the machine and the fifth to walk behind the harvester to pick up potatoes into a basket. During the morning both the employer and his foreman visited the field to see the harvesting operation. The accident occurred immediately after the lunch break when it is believe that the five young people climbed on to the harvester to return to the top of the field to begin harvesting again. No one saw the accident occur although it was clear from the wheel marks in the soil that Saul Ben Randall was run over by the harvester."
This is a tragic instance of yet one more accident to a young person—he was 15—who has died in agriculture on a farm.
I want now to quote from the letter that Saul's mother wrote to me. She refers to the fact that there was an inquest. A verdict of "Accidental death" was brought in. Subsequently there was a court hearing involving the farm worker who was driving the tractor that was drawing the potato harvester, but at the time of writing nothing was known of what the subsequent actions would be or of their result.
The mother is speculating on what is likely to happen after the inquest. She says,
"As you understand, such actions"—
if they be brought—
"will not benefit us at all. Nothing can bring Saul back to us again. But I feel that you too will be aware of the dangers faced by youngsters working unsupervised with modern machinery. The agricultural worker is in many ways the Cinderella of the labour force; and because of the tied cottage system they do not speak up easily.
In your constituency many hundreds of schoolchildren must work holiday time on farms and I believe that you could help by urging the Ministry to prosecute each and every farmer not complying with the accepted safety standards."
After the accident the mother says,
1480
"The farmer sent us a typewritten note to say ' Please find enclosed postal order for £4·80 being the sum of one day's work for Saul Randall'—not even a regret or a word of sympathy; and certainly no hint that such things must not happen again.
I am sure that you will feel like us, that it must not, and hope that you will show your interest to the Ministry who have the case in their hands."
That is a poignant letter. I regard it as my duty to put the facts as clearly as I can this evening to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will take on board what I have to say.
The parents of this boy, Mr. and Mrs. Randall, are two splendid people. I met them after reading that letter. I know what this debate must cost them. By all accounts, Saul was a fine boy—I never met him. Having this debate means that the whole subject, which causes them the greatest concern and grief, has to be raised again. I have put this matter to them, and they have said to me, "Mr. Ellis, do what you can. There are other young people." That has been the spirit that they have shown throughout.
Nor were they wanting any degree of vengeance. I want to make that clear. An inquest was held. It resulted in a verdict of "Accidental death" I am sure that no one wanted to kill this boy and that the verdict was right. I have no quibble about the courts. There was a case involving a farm worker and there was no vindictiveness there. It was a tragedy for him as well.
However, I am concerned this evening to bring home to my hon. Friend the fact that if there is legislation to protect young people, it must be enforced, and, if necessary, it must be updated.
The boy's brother worked with him on that fateful morning. He gave his evidence. When he was asked further about the matter he said
"Each of we five schoolchildren had had two turns of walking behind that day. Everybody rode uphill on the ladder when he was doing the 'outside' turn. Sometimes the driver stopped the harvester but sometimes we jumped on the ladder when the machinery was moving in a forward direction. I have no idea whether the driver knew what we were doing."
I have a verbatim record of the inquest and a picture of the potato harvester. I shall gladly give the picture to my hon. Friend. It is a big machine. Its ladder comes down immediately behind the big back wheels. If any person slipped while

1481
standing on that ladder while the machine was travelling, he would go straight under a rear wheel.
The point that I want to make—I shall make it again before I resume my seat—is as follows. My constituency has a steelworks, too. Let the House suppose that we had a working practice that meant that a steel worker, on arriving at work, would suddenly find allotted to him five schoolchildren when perhaps he had had no training in supervision, safety measures, or anything else of that kind, someone merely saying to him "You have a job to do this morning. You are using a complicated and dangerous piece of machinery. Here are five schoolchildren to help you." Let us suppose that he placed them around the machine, got on the front to drive it and could not even see them. Let us suppose that the operation commenced and one of the youngsters became entangled in the machinery or fell, and no one saw the incident.
Later another person, whether it is in a factory or a steelworks, walking through the shop would find a dead body on the floor. That would be a cause célèbre. It would be taken up by every newspaper. There would be a row of great magnitude. However, in agriculture such an accident is apparently generally accepted.
I have undertaken some research and I have read the Committee reports of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972. When I read the reports I observed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. My hon. Friend is a great personal friend and he mentioned that the Committee had discussed farm safety and accidents involving young people when engaged on farm work. He suggested that I should look at the Committee proceedings.
I took up his invitation and I read that he put forward the proposition that fines should be increased where safety provisions had been ignored. He said:
"I am not over-connected with farming in my constituency."
My hon. Friend is supporting the proposition that fines should be increased. He continued:
"I do not think I would ever have bothered at all if it were not for the fact that a tragic
1482
accident happened to a boy of under 15 who had been working for eight days on a farm in my constituency. Tragically, he was killed in a farming accident. I do not wish to reopen the case but it led me to look at farm safety and safety regulations. Being a safety officer in one of the more dangerous occupations in this country, the mining industry, I was shocked and amazed by what I found in agriculture and by the attitude towards safety in agriculture."
In the next paragraph my hon. Friend says:
"Safety figures and regulations are shocking. From my point of view, the figures are nigh on criminal. Since 1965, 1,823 farm workers have been killed, 518 of them because of one type of accident—tractors overturning. Since 1965, 289 under-15-year-olds have been killed in farming. Those figures are shocking. I say that with a guilty conscience, not having picked it up earlier and because others who have been involved in another industry as safety officers have not more closely involved themselves with such tragedies."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H 21st March 1972; c. 656–7.]
As my hon. Friend said, he is a miner. Mining is a dangerous industry. From that point of view his remarks on this subject are significant.
I have been able to obtain accident figures since 1972. In 1973 in Great Britain there is a change in the figures because from that year onwards they relate to those under 16 years, whereas before 1973 they related to those under 15. In 1973, 120 farm workers were killed, 28 of them under 16. In 1974, 104 farm workers were killed, 30 of them children. In 1975, 101 farm workers lost their lives, 23 of them young children. In 1976, 102 farm workers died, 21 of them young children. The 1976 figures have yet to be confirmed.
I accept that we have changed the regulations and have tried to improve them. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on these matters extensively and will explain what has been achieved. It is wrong that there should be dual standards of safety in different industries. Throughout the country young people engage in what is a dangerous industry—I refer to agriculture—that employs sophisticated machinery.
It is not only the machinery that is dangerous, because farmers use such things as pesticides. Farming is becoming big business. I suppose that we are all guilty in that we have allowed young people to work in agriculture. It is accepted that young people will be about in the circumstances that I have described.

1483
These events often go unremarked. There is a close relationship among those who work in agriculture. In many cases they live in small villages and they know one another. However, when people lose a child they are naturally affected by grief. It is a tragic happening. But my constituents seek to forget. They are not vindictive. Very often these matters are glossed over and conveniently forgotten. Some of us who have had experience in these affairs have known what has been taking place over a long period. We shall redouble our efforts to ensure that proper standards are observed.
I have seen the parents in this case and they are the salt of the earth. They are concerned to see that this sort of accident does not happen to our children. As their Member of Parliament, I can do no less than to raise the matter on the Adjournment and to introduce it on other occasions so that the House may focus its attention. That is our duty as Members and as Ministers.
It is difficult to obtain industrial accident figures and I hope that my hon. Friend will do some research. The figures are usually tabulated per 100,000, and it seems that on that basis there are more fatalities in agriculture than in most industries. There are between two and three times as many per 100,000 in agriculture. I do not suppose that there are comparable figures for school children that relate to other industries because the practice that obtains in agriculture is not so extensive elsewhere.
Surely we have a public duty. I understand that the provisions for enforcing farm safety have been placed with the new Health and Safety Executive. I know that there were those in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who wanted to keep that power for themselves. I was always of the other view.
I hope that the word will go out from this place tonight to the Health and Safety Executive that we expect it to be tough. We shall be looking for a reduction in accidents and fatalities, but when they occur we shall be asking for comparative statistics. We shall want to know what action is being taken. We shall want to know what fines are being imposed and the steps being taken to remedy the present state of affairs.
1484
During the time that I have been the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe this case is the second fatality in a very short period. My memory may be slightly at fault, but I believe that it was about two years ago that there was a fatality in a strawberry field. Families were picking strawberries—I suppose that it is a pleasant thing to do—when the tragedy took place. A toddler wandered from its parents. A tractor was coming down the field between the rows and the driver never saw the child. The toddler was killed.
If I am belabouring the point I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I wish to stress that that sort of thing is happening in agriculture day after day and week in, week out.
Some of us intend to do all that we can to put matters right. If we do not succeed in reducing the number of accidents and fatalities, we are coming to the conclusion that we must introduce legislation to make it an offence for school children to be employed in agriculture.
7.20 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) for raising this matter. I appreciate the spirit in which he has raised it and what he has said about the spirit in which the parents of Saul Ben Randall have asked him to pursue the matter.
The safety of children on farms continues to be a matter of serious and continuing concern, particularly to the agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. I share their concern and should like to express my sorrow at the two tragic accidents to which my hon. Friend has referred. The Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has assured me that in his view there is no question of the application of dual standards towards safety in industry, by which I assume that my hon. Friend means in a factory environment, and safety in agriculture. However, there is a distinction in respect of the age at which young people can be employed in agriculture and in industry.
In the case of Saul Ben Randall, as my hon. Friend said, the driver of the tractor was prosecuted and found guilty of not taking reasonable care of the health and

1485
safety of other persons, as it is put, and he received a 12-month suspended sentence. Thus, action was taken in that case under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Although the dangers of working in factories have long been recognised and legislated against, it is only comparatively recently that significant legislation for the protection of workers in agriculture was introduced. The first measure was the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 followed by the Agriculture (Safety, Health & Welfare Provisions) Act 1956. The former enabled regulations to be made to protect workers from the risk of poisoning when using certain specified substances. The second Act had a much wider application relating to accidents and health hazards on the farm including the provision of sanitary and washing facilities for workers and safeguards for young people lifting weights. Regulations were subsequently made to protect workers against bodily injury or injury to health arising from the use of machinery, for providing a safe place of work and for the avoidance of accidents to children.
Altogether, 11 sets of regulations were made under the 1956 Act. In addition the regulations made for the safe use of pesticidies have been replaced by revised regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which now embrace the self-employed.
It is the intention that most health and safety regulations will be made on an across-the-board basis but there will still be some which relate exclusively to agricultural matters. My hon. Friend will know that already regulations have been made regarding the preparation of written safety policy statements which apply to all industries, including agriculture. Also, recently, regulations have been accepted by this House regarding safety representatives and safety committees on a similar basis.
With the transfer of full responsibility for health and safety to the Health and Safety Commission—I am glad my hon. Friend welcomed that—the agricultural inspectorate has been strengthened and now comprises almost 200 full-time inspectors. During 1976, over 29,000 visits of inspection were made to farms when both advisory and enforcement functions were carried out. Since the new powers of the 1974 Act were made available in
1486
April 1975, the inspectorate has made full use of them and in 1976 issued 212 prohibition notices and 877 improvement notices.
My hon. Friend referred to the letter from Saul Randall's mother and its reference to the need for prosecutions. As he said, it was a poignant letter. The inspectorate were also responsible for mounting 221 successful prosecutions during the year under the agricultural regulations and the general provisions of the 1974 Act.
It is the practice of the inspectorate to investigate all fatal accidents and poisoning incidents and the more serious of the reported non-fatal accidents involving workers. In 1976, over 1,700 non-fatal accidents—almost 40 per cent.—were in fact investigated. I hope that this will indicate to my hon. Friend, who asked for a tough approach, that the inspectorate rigorously pursues an active health and safety policy in agriculture.
Turning to the specific question of the safety of children on farms, I must say that this is a particularly difficult problem, almost peculiar to agriculture. We are all aware of the high figure of child fatalities—unfortunately amounting to 20 or so every year. This is an unacceptable situation. However, we have to face the fact that the farm, besides being a workplace, is traditionally something of a playground. It would not be practicable to ban all children from all farms—and my hon. Friend has not asked for that. We obviously would not want to do it. However, the overwhelming majority of farm accidents involve children at play and not at work.
What the agricultural inspectorate has always stressed is that all concerned—parents, employers and workers—have a responsibility for seeing that children are kept away from operating machines, are shewn where they can safely play and are adequately supervised. Every opportunity is taken by the inspectorate to bring home to the fanning community and school children the hazards existing on farms. My hon. Friend will know that for the recent EEC Farm Safety Week the theme chosen by the United Kingdom was "Children and Machinery" with the slogan "You can't play safe with machines". This choice reflects the continuing concern of the agricultural inspectorate about the number of children who

1487
lose their lives on farms each year. The campaign was given the full support and co-operation of all major organisations in agriculture.
The week was launched at a Press conference on 2nd May by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. This was followed by the first showing of a new children's farm safety film specially produced under commission from the Health and Safety Executive The film was designed to warn children about dangers on the farm in a way that they would understand and through characters with whom they could identify and it does this very effectively. Equally it has a message for parents and indeed every adult with responsibilities for children.
To coincide with the week, the Executive launched three national children's farm safety competitions through some 25,000 schools throughout the country. The EEC Farm Safety Week received very wide coverage by the Press, radio and TV, particularly in the regions. We hope that it will help to drive home the message that accidents do not just happen—they are caused. It is hoped this extensive campaign will achieve its objective of reducing the number of accidents to children on farms.
The employment of children on farms is governed by various statutory measures. There are a number of agricultural regulations which protect the young person under 18 or in some cases under 16. In the case of driving and riding on tractors and other self-propelled machines, the minimum age is fixed by regulations at 13. There is legislation governing the employment of children, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible.
Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, local authorities are empowered to make byelaws on the part-time employment of children under compulsory school leaving age, outside school hours, in non-industrial occupations. The Children Act 1972 fixed the minimum age of employment at 13, but byelaws may also provide for the employment of children under 13 by their parents or guardians in light horticultural or agricultural work.
1488
The Employment of Children Act 1973 empowers my right hon. Friend to introduce national regulations to replace the local authority byelaws. My hon. Friend will know that the introduction of these regulations was postponed for at least two years, in February 1976, because of the limited resources available to local authorities to implement them. Even so, when the regulations are eventually made, there is no proposal that they should prohibit the employment of children in agriculture. I know that my hon. Friend did not ask for that.
There are many light jobs on farms and holdings that have been traditionally undertaken by children and this applies particularly with small family businesses. I think it would be wrong to legislate to prohibit young people from performing jobs on farms which help the small family farm and encouraged the youngsters to take up a career in farming.
Mr. John Ellis: It is the whole atmosphere which is wrong. People say that they know the difficulties but that it is traditional to have young children around farms. But unless there is a new realisation of the dangers involved, we shall have to start thinking about making it an offence for children under school age to be around dangerous machinery unless the pattern of operations is changed. Then the agricultural industry and all concerned will understand that this is a serious matter. This is not just one or two isolated instances. These accidents happen here, there and everywhere all the time. We must break through to people. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with that.
Mr. Grant: I think that I can agree with that. What my hon. Friend says is right. Unless there is a further improvement, a whole atmosphere of pressure will build up along the lines that he has suggested and it will be very difficult for us to resist it. We have to achieve a further improvement and to bring it home to people. I believe that the measures that I have described and one or two others that are in hand will satisfy my hon. Friend that there is a great deal going on. It would be premature, however, to make any judgment that legislation is necessary as of now. Where there are known risks, regulations have been made and

1489
these are kept constantly under review by the Executive.
The inspectorate has the advice of the Agriculture Industry Advisory Committee, set up last year by the Health and Safety Commission. This was the first such industry advisory committee to be appointed, and it underlines the importance that the Commission give to this subject. That Committee is considering measures designed to reduce the hazards to children on farms. Any recommendation that it puts forward will be carefully considered by the Commission, who will not hesitate to take whatever steps are felt to be necessary for the protection of young people on farms, including putting before my right hon. Friend any proposals for regulations. Also, I shall undertake to ensure that the Commission's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks tonight.
But regulations are not necessarily the answer in all cases. Recognising that it is not possible, or even desirable, to keep children off farms completely, I would urge everyone fully to accept their responsibilities in this respect. Many accidents could be prevented if children were provided with safe areas in which to play away from form operations and other hazardous situations and were properly supervised.
With the co-operation of those concerned we should be able to achieve the reduction in the number of child fatalities in agriculture that we all want to see.

HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCEDURES
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Before I call the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant), I shall indicate the practice regarding additional Adjournment debates. If an hon. Member uses the opportunity—because it is not yet 10.30 p.m.—of seeking another Adjournment debate, it is the practice to see whether he can get a Minister to reply—otherwise there is no purpose in speaking to an empty Chamber.
Page 285 of "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Chair deprecates the introduction of such subjects in instances where due notice has not been given to the Minister concerned. I take it that the
1490
hon. Member has given due or some other kind of notice but has been unsuccessful in getting a Minister to attend.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: I want to speak on the unsatisfactory nature of highway planning procedures. Following the very clear ruling that you have given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should tell you that an hour ago I rang the Department of the Environment and got from it an agreement that I could raise this subject. I rang again half an hour ago and was told that there was considerable difficulty in getting hold of the Minister. However, the Department assured me that it was trying to get the Minister. Whether he is about to arrive, I do not know, but I did get an assurance from the Department that it would try to have a Minister here.
Perhaps it will be right if I speak very briefly on this important subject of the unsatisfactory nature of highway planning procedure, and hope that a Minister will come in time to reply. I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to introduce Adjournment debates, so I suggest that I should speak now so that when the Minister arrives he can hear that part of my speech. If he does not arrive, then the Minister handling the next debate will be able to carry on from there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The problem is, of course, that one can hardly regard half an hour or even an hour as due notice. Ministers have engagements. While the Department has promised to try to locate a Minister, obviously it has been unsuccessful. I have read out the relevant part of "Erskine May", which shows that in the past the Chair has deprecated the holding of an Adjournment debate when there is no Minister to reply, and I deprecate it now.
If the Minister were to come in at the end of the hon. Member's speech, he would not hear the arguments, and that makes it rather awkward. It is difficult to reply to a speech that he has not heard. He might find himself talking about an entirely different aspect of the subject.
However, the right remains—and this is the essential point—that, Minister or no Minister and with the Chair deprecating it, if the hon. Member insists he may continue with his contribution.
Mr. Le Marchant: I hope that while deprecating it officially, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will feel that I am not out of order in taking the opportunity to say a few very brief words on this subject. I believe that the conduct of inquiries on road planning has been appalling in these past few years. I believe that the whole country is distressed at what is happening.
We should all congratulate the inspectors who, in extremely difficult circumstances, have carried out these public inquiries. They have carried them out, as we saw last week, at considerable physical danger to themselves. Therefore the House should send them warm congratulations and a message indicating very strongly that the minority who seek to abuse the right of the public at inquiries by their arrogance and behaviour are doing this country no good at all. Nor will the majority of people who believe in democracy allow the arrogant minority to succeed in their thuggery. Nor is there any question, as has been clearly shown, of this behaviour making the inspectors alter the course of their decisions.
We know that there have been cases of the public not being satisfied by the public inquiry procedure. The main cause for complaint about the procedure is set out in a booklet from the Department of the Environment issued in July 1974 which says:
"An inquiry into a road proposal is not a court of law nor is the inspector a judge. An inquiry is held so that the public may have an opportunity to put to the inspector their views on the proposals, either for or against, and the Secretary of State can be informed by the inspector of all the material facts, points of view and arguments before reaching his decision. The inspector is given all relevant correspondence from the objectors to the proposal, and other interested parties so that he will be fully informed in conducting the inquiry and making his recommendations to the Secretary of State."
The main objection of the British public is that it is the Secretary of State for Transport who employs the inspectors. I believe that the British people are not satisfied with that situation. The Minister for Planning and Local Government was asked about the matter on 4th August 1976, and that passage is set out in column 1713 of Hansard. The Minister then refused to give any firm
1492
answers and referred to a review of the public inquiry procedure.
It is the final responsibility of the Secretary of State whether he accepts the result put forward by the inquiry and by the inspector. I am in complete agreement with that, because there can be many circumstances after the inquiry has taken place which may alter the view of the Secretary of State.
I should like to put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that motor improvements have brought a great enrichment of life to millions of people who live in cities, whose roads have caused pollution and contain many undesirable elements that affect, for one instance, children going to school.
In my constituency in Chapel-en-le- Frith and Whaley Bridge there is a problem whether a bypass should be provided. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to bring to your notice—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no sense in bringing it to my notice, because I have no ministerial responsibility.
Mr. Le Marchant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like it to be known that I personally feel that the people of Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge would benefit enormously from the provision of a bypass. I equally feel for the people on the surrounding land that is now blighted by a potential inquiry and who cannot sell their houses and consequently are suffering considerably as a result of this present situation.
What do I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Perhaps I should not put that question to you, but I should state my views on this matter. I believe that public inquiries should be held under the independent auspices of the Lord Chancellor's Office. I believe that such public inquiries should possess the powers of courts. Equally, I believe that payment for legal expenses should be made to private individuals who wish to object. At the moment it is wrong that a private individual who has good cause to object is not able to do so because he cannot afford it. Such people are fighting against the wealth of vast municipal organisations and in some cases against industry.

1493
Finally, I wish to say that I hope that this matter will be pursued speedily because these problems should not hang about for so many years.

MR. AND MRS. JAMES TODD
7.43 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather: I wish to follow the comments—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Perhaps I should also tell the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) that the Chair deprecates the futility of conducting a debate with no Minister present. This affects ministerial responsibility, otherwise there is no sense in conducting a debate of this nature.
Mr. Mather: I respect your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in touch with the Home Office and told the officials there that I intended to mention the subject of Mr. and Mrs. James Todd of New Zealand. The Private Office in the Home Office raised no objection and said it would do its best to see that the Minister arrived here as soon as possible. I expect that the Minister will arrive very shortly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Frankly, I do not see the purpose of this exercise. If the Minister comes in at the tail end of the Minister's speech, how can he possibly reply to utterances that he has not heard? I should be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman how long it is since the hon. Gentleman gave notice to the Home Office.
Mr. Mather: I gave notice to the Home Office about a month ago that I intended to raise this matter on the adjournment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman say a month ago?
Mr. Mather: Yes, a month ago.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was referring to the notice the hon. Gentleman gave the Home Office on this occasion.
Mr. Mather: On this occasion I telephoned the Home Office half an hour ago to inquire whether it was reasonable for the Minister to come to the House. The Home Office agreed that it was reasonable. I said that I expected to
1494
speak within half an hour or so, and it agreed that that was reasonable.
The officials there know of this case because we have been in correspondence about it. I have given them warning that I intend, through normal means, to raise this matter on the Adjournment, so they are fully prepared for this debate. I do not expect that I shall raise any new questions of which they are not aware.
I shall attempt briefly to outline the case of Mr. and Mrs. Todd of Oxshott in my constituency. They are New Zealanders who are under a deportation order to leave this country. Their children were born in this country and are British citizens with British passports. Mr. Todd has a New Zealand passport and is a New Zealand citizen. His wife was previously a German citizen holding a German passport. On marriage she decided to become a naturalised New Zealander.
Their story briefly is as follows. Mr. Todd was born in New Zealand but did not enjoy the blessing of English patriality, because his great-grandfather had emigrated to New Zealand. In 1959 he went to the United States on a scholarship course and met his future wife. They were married four years later and came to live in England. He persuaded his wife to hand in her German passport and take out a New Zealand passport.
The couple then came to Oxshott in my constituency where Mr. Todd took up a situation in the Daneshill Preparatory School. In 1967 he was appointed joint headmaster. He had no formal qualifications such as would be required in this country. He became acutely aware of this and set about obtaining qualifications. He had the New Zealand equivalent of British A-levels, but they did not count. It would have meant that he would have to study for his English A-levels at an English college. He took the sensible course of returning to New Zealand to obtain the necessary qualifications at Canterbury University in that country. He took the whole family home with him. He thought it right in principle that the children should for a short period of time live in the country of his birth.
Mr. Todd made the usual arrangements. He let his house in Oxshott and retained his share in the preparatory school where he had been working. He

1495
left the country in 1970. At that time, he had verbal assurance from the Home Office that the Immigration Bill, then in the pipeline, would not affect his position. He had asked in particular whether it was safe for him to leave the United Kingdom and whether he would be able to come back. He was given a verbal assurance that that would be the case. He returned to the United Kingdom in 1974, having completed his university course.
Mr. Todd returned with his three children, who had all been born in England and hold United Kingdom passports, and they then entered their respective schools here. Of course, at the time he knew the stipulations of the Immigration Act 1971, but the family were allowed into the United Kingdom providing that he did not take on any permanent work. So we have the situation of the parents entering this country on sufferance but their children entering as of right.
The ironical situation in this tangle over the nationality laws is that Mrs. Todd, having been born a German, could, if she can obtain her German passport back, stay here under Common Market regulations. But he cannot stay here under British regulations. Mr. Todd's mistake was to leave the country and go back to New Zealand. If he had settled here, there would have been no difficulty.
That is the matter which I wished to raise. One recalls that, when the 1971 Act was going through the House, these matters were discussed in great detail. In Committee there was long argument about patrial arrangements and whether they were the most suitable. It was decided in the end the people whose forebears had gone from the United Kingdom to other parts of the Commonwealth would, if their fathers or grandfathers had been born in this country, have the right to return. The unfortunate thing about Mr. Todd's case is that it was his great-great-grandfather who was born here, and therefore Mr. Todd has been caught in the tangle of this legislation.
I do not think that it was the intention of anyone in the House at the time that such a situation should arise. No one could then clearly foresee that further legislation would come about by which we became members of the EEC and whereby nationals of the other countries
1496
of the Community would, through Common Market arrangements, have the right to come to this country and live here.
Therefore, we have the curious situation, apparently, that the only means, unless it is possible for the Home Office to relent in some way, for Mr. Todd to stay with his children, who have a right to stay here, being British subjects with British passports, is if his wife, who was born a German, can obtain from the German authorities her German passport again. Then the Todd family from New Zealand will have a perfect right to stay and work in this country.
I believe that such a situation was either unforeseen when the legislation was going through Parliament or his arisen since because of the development of events. But it has trapped this family most unfairly. What is being said now is "Your children can stay here but you, the parents, must be deported". I do not believe that it is right that that should happen to any family under our jurisdiction.
I know that the Minister has been looking at this case. I have corresponded with him. I know that the Home Office within the rules has done all it can to help the Todd family, but sooner or later the law will have to take its course. I hope that the Minister, when he reads my speech, will be able to give some fresh thought to how it may be possible for the Home Office to settle matters satisfactorily so that the Todd family does not have to split up, with the children being in one country and the parents in another.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Teddy Taylor Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who was not present when I made my observations earlier, I point out that there is no Minister present, as he will have observed, and there are no officials in the Box either. Therefore, I read to him from page 285 of "Erskine May" where it clearly states:
"The Chair has deprecated the introduction of such subjects in cases where due notice has not been given to the Minister concerned."
Half-an-hour's notice is not due notice. The fact is that there is no Minister here. I have no ministerial responsibility as such. My job is to conduct the affairs of

1497
the House from the Chair. In my opinion, what is happening tonight is a gross abuse of the practices of the House, and I propose to report the whole matter of tonight's incidents to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Mather: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I very much respect what you have said, but is not the reason why we are in this predicament that another hon. Member took various actions as regards legislation before us in order to delay that legislation? That is why we are in this parlous state, business having ended much sooner than we thought it would. It derives from action taken last week by another hon. Member and not by us.
Mr. John Nott: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time.
The whole question revolves around whether due notice has been given to a Minister. In my opinion half-an-hour or an hour is inadequate notice. It is not due notice. In any case, no Ministers are present. What is the purpose, then, of addressing an empty House on a subject? Such an action downgrades the whole of the House of Commons to the status of a debating society. A speech becomes a soliloquy.
Mr. Mather: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I telephoned the office of the Minister concerned and it was perfectly accepted that I should go ahead with this debate. If it had been stated in any way that it was inconvenient and that the notice was too short, I would have respected that and would not have pursued the matter. But notice was accepted. I explained that it was short notice and the Home Office said that it would try to get a Minister here as soon as possible. On that basis I went ahead with my debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In such circumstances, in my opinion the hon. Gentleman should not have proceeded with his additional Adjournment debate, because it served no useful purpose.
Mr. Nott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your view that an attempt to speak now is an abuse of the House, but surely if, on an occasion
1498
like this, an hon Member who seeks to raise matters which affect his constituency—which is what I should like to do—has informed the Government Whips' Office, which I have done, do you not think that it is reasonable for hon. Members to be allowed to speak, in the sense that normally it is a practice of the House that there are Whips available on both sides of the House?
I do not necessarily seek an answer from a Government Whip, but I should like to make a speech about my constituency problems. I think that a Minister would have been here for my speech if one could be found.
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that my constituents are interested in what I have to say in this House about the problems in my constituency. Certainly if the authorities of the House say that this is a gross abuse of the procedures, I should have to accept that view. But I ask you whether it is not possible to take this unique opportunity to talk about our constituencies. No doubt a Minister will arrive in a moment, but until then we could use this unique occasion to the advantage of our constituencies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Government Whips have nothing whatever to do with it. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a Government Whip to discuss his constituency problems. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that when an hon. Member addresses empty Benches, with the occupant of the Chair as the sole other individual present, what we are doing is conducting a debating society. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that there are opportunities every week for hon. Members to raise constituency matters through making an application for an Adjournment debate.
The whole question revolves around the presence or non-presence of a Minister. I do not see a Minister present and I therefore think that the whole process is an abuse of the House.
Mr. Nott:I do not seek to argue the points with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must point out that I have tried to get a debate on the problems of West Cornwall for the past five years and there has been no parliamentary time for me to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It amazes me to learn that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to get an Adjournment debate for five years.
Mr. Nott: There is now a Minister in the Chamber. I should like to take advantage of the Minister's appearance. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was present before me. I do not think that he was.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Nott: I do not wish to speak before my hon. Friend. However, I should like to take advantage of the Minister's presence and give notice now that I should like to talk about the problems of the police in my constituency. I think it is a responsibility that comes within the purview of the Home Office.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) who has indicated that he would like to give notice now—at five minutes past eight—that he wants to initiate a debate. As he knows, due notice ought to be given. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is due notice, I have another interpretation.
Mr. Mather: I had not quite finished speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when my hon. Friend interrupted me. If I may, I will conclude my speech.
I see that the Under-Secretary is present and I know she has heard of the case of Mr. and Mrs. James Todd. I am sorry that I was not able to give her more adequate notice. I hope that she is aware of the facts of the case. It would please me very much if she were able to make a short statement about the present situation and the deportation order that lies over Mr. and Mrs. James Todd.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished speaking about 15 minutes ago.
8.4 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I can give him a few facts about this case which, naturally, have been hurriedly produced.
Mr. and Mrs. Todd, aged 35 and 33 respectively, lived in this country from
1500
1964 to 1970 but then left to live abroad. They returned in March 1974, saying that they wished to settle here. They did not qualify under the immigration rules, but were none the less granted entry for two months to allow Mr. Todd to make a case for staying as a business man. However, though their solicitors started corresponding with us in April 1974 and despite our granting the Todds leave to remain further until 31st July 1975, no evidence of entitlement to remain under any heading of the Commonwealth rules has ever been forthcoming.
On 8th September 1976 the Home Office gave the solicitors a time limit of one month in which to produce satisfactory evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Todd had a claim to stay. When we had no real response, we refused on 26th October to revoke their conditions or to extend leave to remain. As a consequence of the Subramaniam judgment, the Todds had no right of appeal. The case attracted some publicity at that stage, but the Todds are still here despite having had over the years the clearest possible warning that they are not entitled to stay without establishing a claim under the Rules and the necessity of their either doing so or taking their departure.
The next step is to serve notice of intention to deport them as persistent over-stayers under Section 3(5)(a) of the Act. They will have the right of appeal against both the making of a deportation order and destination, and this will compensate for their lack of right of appeal against the refusal to vary their stay. Pending the hearing of any appeal that they may make, should there be any further material developments—and certainly in view of the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight, which I shall read in Hansard—their case will be reviewed in the light of these developments.
Mr. Mather: Is the hon. Lady aware that under EEC rules if Mrs. Todd is able to reclaim her German passport the Todds would actually be allowed to stay in this country, but they cannot do so under British nationality rules even though the children have British passports? The parents have New Zealand passports and therefore the family is divided. The children have a perfect right to stay here and they are entering their schools, but the parents will be deported. That seems to be grossly unfair.
Dr. Summerskill: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman the up-to-date situation with regard to what the German authorities have decided on any application that Mrs. Todd might have made to them. But certainly when I have read the hon. Gentleman's speech I shall give him the up-to-date facts of the case and in particular an answer to that last point.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Teddy TaylorI listened, as I am sure the whole House did, with great interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your understandably correct comments a few moments ago. I hope that when reporting to Mr. Speaker, you will also report that, as usual, the Scots have set an example to all other hon. Members in the House and, indeed, to the Ministers in the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He was ready to start speaking when no Minister was present. That is what I object to. No Minister from the Scottish Office was present. That is all I am objecting to.
Mr. Taylor: In case there may be any reflection on the Minister, I should like to record the fact that I did give him what I regard as due notice. He immediately agreed to come at short notice and to answer the debate.
I am particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for agreeing to come to discuss a subject which we both agree is very important. It would be fair to record that a Scottish Member and, indeed, a Scottish Minister have shown yet again how such matters should be dealt with not only correctly but also with the maximum of courtesy. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for agreeing to my raising the subject. I am also grateful to the Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Office for being present. I would point out how well the Scots do this kind of thing.
I want to raise the future of municipal housing in Scotland. This is an important subject because it affects the mobility of Scots. In Scotland less than one-third of the entire population live in owner-occupied dwellings. The latest official
1502
figure that I saw put the proportion at 32 per cent. That is about the lowest figure in Europe and it is lower than two countries behind the Iron Curtain. The latest figure I have seen for Czechoslovakia put owner-occupation there at 50 per cent. In Yugoslavia it is 47 or 48 per cent. Scotland's figure, therefore, is particularly low, and that makes it important for the Government to consider changing their policy.
There is a case for council houses and houses owned by public authorities to be offered for sale to sitting tenants. At its recent conference in Perth my party made it clear that when it came back to power it would oblige local councils to offer houses for sale at a substantial discount to sitting tenants.
The Minister cannot complain that I have not given him sufficient notice for the debate. On 23rd March I gave notice at Question Time that I would seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The Minister has therefore had two months in which to prepare himself. On that occasion I was asking him how many houses had been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland. The figures were dramatic. He said, as reported at column 1259 of that date, that sales of council houses to sitting tenants completed in Scotland were, for 1972, 645; 1973, 744; 1974, 171; 1975, 30; and 1976, an estimate of 80.
We can see, therefore, that there has been a sharp reduction. Councils have been less willing to offer houses to sitting tenants because they are largely aware of the answer they will get from the Scottish Office. I hope that tonight the Minister will do two things. First, I hope that he will make clear that the Government will change direction on the sale of council houses and that they will give positive encouragement to local authorities to proceed in this direction. Secondly, I hope that we shall have an assurance that the new Conservative-controlled local authorities—more than half the population of Scotland has the advantage of living in an area with a Conservative-controlled authority—will not be frustrated in their endeavours in this respect.
There is a sound argument for houses to be sold to sitting tenants. That would improve the mobility of labour—which is desperately important in a country which

1503
is undergoing structural change in its industry. There is no point in having houses in one part of the country and jobs in another. We know from our constituencies that there are many people who would like to move house in order to obtain a job elsewhere but who cannot do so because they live in council houses and cannot get a transfer.
There is the tragic case of the person who wants to move in order to be near relatives—perhaps people of 80 or 85 years of age—who need constant attention. Owner-occupation does not mean that mobility can be given effect at a moment's notice, but it certainly makes moving easier.
I believe that many young couples, and particularly young mothers, go through a great deal of emotional stress because they cannot call on the support of an extended family. At Question Time today we heard about the Minister of State's mother-in-law. My mother-in-law lives just round the corner from us in Cathcart, and my mother lives just up the road. We therefore had the support of an extended family. If my wife wants to come to the House to hear a ministerial announcement, she knows that she has someone to come and baby-sit. The advantage of having relatives nearby makes life tolerable for many young couples. Many of the young mothers in some of the vast housing developments are taking pills because they do not have that benefit and suffer from emotional problems as a result.
There is another consideration which must be borne in mind. If a tenant improves his property by spending money to make the house more agreeable, he gets no credit for that. If the Minister spent £300 or £400 improving a council house of which he was a tenant, and if he then obtained a transfer or if he died and the house went to someone else, he would get no credit for that expenditure. If, through the efforts of residents and tenants, the value of houses in an area rises, the community understandably is entitled to a greater return on the sale price of the house. That increase is not available to the council tenant.
Another important reason why we should offer houses for sale to sitting tenants is that this would probably
1504
be the only chance these people would have of buying their own homes. At one time it was easy to move into owner-occupation by buying a flat in a city centre for £600 or £700. This happened in Dennistown or Battlefield in Glasgow. However, house prices there have since rocketed. Unless council tenants get the chance of buying their own homes with a substantial mortgage and a discount, they will never become owner-occupiers.
Council tenants have been deprived of an advantage that owner-occupiers get, and that is the increase in property values. Property values have kept pace with inflation so that many tenants who have saved up to buy their own homes find house prices leaving them behind and see their chances of becoming owner-occupiers gradually diminishing. In those circumstances, there is a clear case for offering the houses to sitting tenants. If we do not do that, council tenants in Scotland face the prospect of paying more in rents and rates and of having nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
Some irresponsible Members of the Labour Party have made life more difficult in the council areas by exploiting the rents issue for political purposes. I have before me a document entitled "Labour News" which advised people to support a gentleman called Lambie who has subsequently become the Member of Parliament for Central Ayrshire. This was a dramatic pamphlet which said:
"Yes, we have the lowest rents in Scotland—and were proud of it!"
It goes on
"For twelve years local Tories have echoed the demand of successive Tory Secretaries of State for higher rents for council houses.
And for twelve years the Labour-controlled Saltcoats Town Council have defied them."
It continues
"The average rent in Saltcoats is 9s. a week—the lowest of any small burgh in Scotland…Now that we have a Labour Secretary of State we are looking forward with confidence to a new rents policy. New lower rates of interest on money borrowed for house building are expected. So, too, are higher subsidies."
Those were the days when there were irresponsible Labour politicians who sought to exploit the situation for political purpose. Since then the situation has changed. We now have a Labour Government, and the Minister, like previous

1505
Ministers, has been telling local authorities that they simply must try to get their housing accounts more in balance. In this changed situation, I hope that the Minister will look on this matter objectively and from the point of view of the interests of the tenants.
What are the arguments against the sale of council houses to tenants? Some people say that the tenants do not want to buy. I pay tribute here to ex-Councillor Dick Dynes, who was unseated at the local government election. He was a member of the Labour group on Glasgow City Council who took the view that the council should sell council houses to sitting tenants. He was very brave in putting forward that view, which was not universally popular in the Glasgow Labour Party.
Mr. Dynes' committee authorised a survey asking council tenants what their views were on this subject. The poll showed two things clearly. First, the majority of council tenants thought that houses should be offered for sale to sitting tenants. There was no doubt about that result. A smaller proportion, only about 20 per cent., said that they would be interested in buying their own homes. The reasons were that they did not want to buy that particular house or were not interested in buying one in their area, but there is no doubt that the majority of council tenants would like this right to be available to them and to other tenement dwellers and council house dwellers. There is little doubt that the majority would like this facility to be available. This would be a way of extending the rights of council tenants.
The second problem is a more basic: the fear is that if we go ahead with a policy of offering every council house for sale, we might in certain circumstances make the housing position worse instead of better. Obviously, in a city area we might succeed in lling houses only in what could be classified as the popular or nice areas, with the danger that we should make it more difficult to achieve a social balance in the areas which remained.
If the Minister accepts my proposal, I hope that he will insist that there shall be a fair assessment of the realistic market value of each house, and a discount from that. If such a policy were brought
1506
forward, it would be more than likely that in the less popular areas council tenants would find themselves paying less for their houses than they pay in rent. The strongest weapon for ensuring that not just houses in the good areas were sold would be to fix realistic market values, which would mean that the houses of tenants living in the more difficult areas would be better bargains. Such a policy would be one of the best ways of solving the problem as long as those areas continued to exist.
Such a policy would be good for the ratepayers. I believe that the latest published figures showed that the average council house in Scotland costs the ratepayer and taxpayer about £204 a year, or about £4 a week, averaging everything across the board. That is far less than it used to be, but I understand that that is the figure. This cost would be reduced if we encouraged the sale of council houses.
Second, it would be good for the tenants. It would give them more mobility and give them an opportunity of benefiting from improvemets that they make to their own properties. It would also give them more mobility to move nearer to their work or nearer to relatives. As the Minister must know, it would also encourage better use of the housing stock. In many areas there is the problem of having two or three people living in a five-apartment house, or perhaps one person living in a three-apartment house. Such people would like to move but cannot because of the difficulties with transfer arrangements: If more houses were sold people would tend to move much more readily to smaller houses. If people are in a four-apartment council house in a nice area they will not want to move out to live in a one- or two-apartment house unless they are offered one in an area in which they would like to live.
It would be excellent also to encourage greater social mobility in city areas. One of the things that worries me and also worries educationists is that when comprehensive education is imposed on a structured city which has large areas of council houses, large areas of owner-occupied houses and largely privately rented areas, there is the danger that we do not encourage the social mobility which is essential.
I come to the problems of Glasgow. The Conservative administration, which

1507
is a minority administration, has, I understand, made clear this afternoon that it wishes to offer council tenants in Glasgow the right to buy their own homes. I understand that the details of the scheme are not yet published. I gather also—I speak here subject to correction—that this afternoon the Labour group made clear that it was not happy with the Conservatives' scheme. Therefore, full responsibility for deciding whether tenants in Glasgow will have the right to buy their own homes rests fairly and squarely on Scottish National Party councillors who hold the balance in Glasgow. Various views have been expressed about the Scottish National Party and its policies, and I am afraid that on many occasions we have found that on a clear-cut issue of this sort the SNP is never keen to say either "Yes" or "No".
I think that much of the support which the Scottish National Party has had—particularly the protest vote support—has come simply because, when a difficult problem arises on which an answer has to be given, members of the SNP tend to avoid the issue and to say nothing. The Scottish National Party is now on trial in Glasgow. As you realise full well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are issues on which a "Yes" or a "No" has from time to time to be given. Questions cannot be avoided for ever.
In Glasgow now, there is one specific issue which affects more than half the people of that city. There are arguments in favour and arguments against it, but if the SNP does not want to express a view on this direct issue, it will be condemned as irresponsible by the people of Glasgow and, what is more, it will be participating in depriving tenants of a right which would benefit the city as a whole. I regard it as obligatory now on the SNP to say whether it supports the scheme for selling council houses to sitting tenants. I hope that its members will have the guts to give a clear "Yes" or "No", and to give their reasons.
That is only one aspect of municipal accommodation in Scotland, and I am sorry to have spent a little longer than I had intended on the sale of council houses. There are several other issues to be raised. The Minister was rather unkind on the last occasion when we had Scottish Questions and I put to him the
1508
possibility of further thought about house allocation. He will be aware that, unfortunately, there are areas where, rightly or wrongly, there is always suspicion about house allocations. I believe that the recent events in Glasgow inevitably added to the fears which people have about house allocation. In my opinion, the view which has been taken by both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and, I understand the nationalists, on this issue is right, namely, that there should be full disclosure of what appears to be the very small number of cases in which irregularities take place.
On the other hand, I believe that there may be merit in the Minister being willing to authorise a unit of the Scottish Development Department to go round on a regular basis, perhaps every two or three years, to review and report publicly on the house allocation and transfer schemes of every district council. Without doubt, local authorities could learn a great deal from one another, and many local authorities could gain a great deal from advice from the Scottish Development Department on how their allocation or transfer schemes are working.
We know that local authorities tend to bring out one allocation system and then another. It would be helpful if the Scottish Development Department could make such an examination of allocation and transfer schemes and then issue a public report saying whether, in its view, this or that scheme was sound. Moreover, it could in a wider sense help to improve the general housing scene in Scotland.
It is absolutely crucial to make greater provision for the transfer of council tenants from one area to another. There is the exchange scheme which operated, and I believe still operates, in Paisley for tenants who wish to move from one area to another. But few tenants have benefited from it. We must make greater provision in that direction.
I hope that the Minister will have discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security to see whether we could go further towards encouraging the direct payment of rent and rates for those on long-term benefit. There is no doubt that in some of the larger schemes, tenants who do not have joint stock bank accounts have difficulty

1509
in budgeting. They get money weekly, but they have to pay rent monthly. I understand that in some cases it can be done weekly. They have to pay electricity bills every two months and telephone bills every quarter. That is difficult to arrange if one does not have a bank account and has to depend on money coming in weekly.
I am convinced that many cases of evictions and family break-ups have been avoided where it has been possible to arrange for the direct payment of rent to be authorised for families on long-term benefit. I hope that the Minister will agree to have discussions with the DHSS about that matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) would agree about that matter, because he has taken a great interest in it.
I should like the Minister to give some indication of his thoughts on improving housing management. There is no doubt that housing management is a very difficult job. On the other hand, we have not paid sufficient attention or given enough status to those who have this difficult job of managing housing areas. There is an argument for looking at qualifications for housing management and ways of attracting people with somewhat higher qualifications into this difficult area.
Whenever I phone local authorities these days—I am sure that the hon. Member for Maryhill has the same experience—I am often told that the person I want is away on a course or at a conference. On the other hand, those engaged in housing management are usually available because they are busy people with a big job to do. We seem to judge the status of staff in local authorities on the number of conferences or courses which they have attended. Housing management staff are so busy that they do not get away as often as others. I think that there should be greater emphasis on training and on getting people to attend conferences on housing management. In that way we can improve the qualifications and quality of housing management staff.
I must not go on too long, as other hon. Members are waiting to speak. However, I should like the Minister's views on anti-social tenants. This is an emotive issue, as we know from our talks in the past about areas such as Ferguslie Park.
1510
The Minister knows that if action is not taken ghettos tend to be self-creating and certain areas get bad names.
Vandalism is a particularly serious problem in many municipal housing areas. It is a problem everywhere, but particularly in certain housing areas. Crimes of violence also tend to be increasing.
There is a need for the Minister to have some sharp words with his hon. Friend who shares with him the job of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about these matters if he is not prepared to accept some of the excellent proposals put forward by the Conservative Party at its recent Perth conference. Has the Minister any new plans to try to cope with the serious problems of vandalism and violence in some of these areas? Such problems make life difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding tenants.
I hope that I have given the Under-Secretary sufficient time and opportunity to say something about these important issues. I think that he will agree that, irrespective of what the problems are, the authorisation of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants would improve the situation immensely. It would give council tenants more rights than they have now and would be of great benefit.
The Minister has often given the impression that the Conservative Party is not favourably inclined towards council tenants, but that is not so. On the other hand, some people have given the impression that council tenants are in some ways a favoured group in our community. I believe that there are strong arguments indicating that in many respects they have had a raw deal. If we were to authorise the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, they would have more rights than they have now and the finances of local authorities would be improved.
The Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers are constantly getting deputations from local authorities asking for more money and extra borrowing powers. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants would help to reduce the debts and the amount of interest that local authorities have to pay.
I want to end with a final quotation from this astonishing pamphlet, "Labour

1511
News", which advises people to vote Labour because:
"Under a Tory Government, increased rents meant more money for the money lenders".
I am sure that even the Minister would not accept that point of view because the Government have been encouraging local authorities to put up rents in exactly the same way as the Labour Party has alleged that other parties have done.
We want to talk about serious issues in a serious way. I hope that the Minister will give some indication of his thoughts on these points and that he will be able to deal with them all seriously.
8.36 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am sorry I was not present when the points of order were being raised, but it was through no lack of courtesy on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I knew that the hon. Gentleman was raising this matter and I had agreed to reply, but I had understood that two other Adjournments debates would be heard first.
I am more than willing—and, indeed, I am in the proces of offering—to meet representatives of Glasgow District Council in the near future to discuss with that Conservative administration—although do not ask me what that administration might be in a fortnight or three weeks' time—the general housing problems and to find out whether I can be helpful in any way. That, indeed, will be the purpose of the meeting.
The council may decide to discuss with me ways in which the Government can help in any inquiry that may be held into housing allocation in Glasgow, as well as in the areas of other local authorities. The hon. Member for Cathcart got carried away at the Conservative Party Conference and he promised that if he became Secretary of State he would set up a special unit in the Scottish Office to carry out that job. However, it would be most unfortunate to do that at a time when we are trying to devolve power and responsibility.
That it would be so even if a Scottish Assembly had been set up, because it would be intolerable for any central authority to be looking over the shoulders
1512
of properly elected public representatives given the job of carrying out housing allocations. I have offered to meet Glasgow Council to discuss broad housing policies along the fines that the hon. Member for Cathcart has indicated-Glasgow Council may wish to discuss with me the ways in which the Government could help—for example, by supplying the use of Government offices for an independent public inquiry.
It is my impression from what appeared in the Press this morning about what Councillor Mason said yesterday that the responsibilities of office are beginning to dawn on Councillor Mason and he is beginning to realise that governing is not just a matter of making public declarations. The councillor seems to be happy with a tripartite gathering on the housing committee, even though it does not include the Liberals. That committee is more than capable of carrying out any examination that may be necessary.
Mr. J. M. Craigen: I did not hear the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but may I intervene while the Minister is dealing with the relationship between central Government and local housing authorities? Does the Minister accept that there is now a sizeable number of officials attached to the Scottish Office dealing with social work and that some of those officials deploy their expertise entirely in dealing with housing management?
Mr. Brown: I could not agree more and I shall come to that when I deal with what was said about housing management by the hon. Member for Cathcart.
I also acknowledge the fact that although there is a small attendance here tonight—and I am glad to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen)—we do not discuss housing often enough. I welcome this opportunity of replying to the debate. The hon. Member for Cathcart has fairly raised some specific points to which I should like to reply.
On the contentious issue of the sale of council houses, I must repeat what I said earlier today. My party and I are not against the sale of council houses in

1513
certain circumstances. That is the policy of the Government, although I recognise that there are slight differences of opinion in the Labour Party outside the House. In Glasgow the previous administration, led by Dick Dynes and his colleagues, went a long way towards if not getting decisions, at least opening up a discussion on housing matters. Dick Dynes deserved much more support from the electorate than he received.
There will be a Green Paper for England and Wales and another for Scotland. I am sorry that no SNP Member is here, but no doubt the hon. Member for Cathcart will agree that there are different problems in Scotland and that, within the broad framework of public expenditure commitments, we have to find Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. The Green Paper will provide an opportunity for discussion of the sale of council houses.
I am proud to say that the housing authorities in Scotland agreed before the recent elections to take certain action at the Government's request. They have agreed to draw up housing plans based on the requirements of individual authorities and to produce detailed plans for their own area.
However controversial it was in other respects, the reform of local government was good for housing. There are now only 50 or so housing authorities instead of 234, and we are expecting the housing authorities with bigger areas and more resources to produce housing plans and ways of solving the housing problems in their areas on the basis of what they see as the priorities. Whether the authority is Banff and Buchan or Glasgow, if it comes up with propositions that include the sale of council houses, we shall look at them sympathetically. If they are based on what local people want and what elected councils are proposing, they have every right to be considered constructively.
There will be changes in subsidy arrangements to equalise the burdens on housing authorities more fairly. Since we have asked for a comprehensive approach to housing and asked local authorities to look at the needs of owner-occupation, privately rented accommodation, housing associations, the need to encourage tenants' co-operatives and whether there should be improvements in the tenant
1514
landlord relationship in the public sector, I can hardly complain if some come forward with realistic schemes that may include the sale of council houses.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman consider sending a circular to local authorities, perhaps after the Green Paper has been issued, setting out the circumstances in which the sale of council houses might be approved by his Department? Many councils have told me that they have not submitted applications because they do not think that they would be approved.
Mr. Brown: That would be premature. We have asked housing authorities to prepare plans. I recognise that with the change in power and control in some areas this might occasion delay. We originally asked for the plans to be in by July this year. The Green Paper is expected to be published towards the end of next month.
The Green Paper deals with matters other than the selling of council houses. The housing authorities have an opportunity to put forward their schemes. If Glasgow said that it was going to sell every house in Castlemilk, Easterhouse and Drumchapel, we should tell it to think again. But if it were to suggest selling houses in Myrtle Park, that would be a different matter, although it would affect people who wished to transfer to a good area.
I do not approach this matter in an ideological and doctrinaire manner. Local authorities are free to put forward plans. I believe that the Monklands District Council and possibly the Clydebank area have the highest percentage of publicly owned houses in Scotland. If they said that they wanted to submit a scheme to increase owner-occupation, that fact would be taken into account. I give the House that assurance.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that the Tory-controlled councils fought the elections on the sale of council houses. That is not right. It was certainly not an issue in the Provan constituency.
The hon. Member also discussed building up neighbourhoods. I agree about the importance of that. It is admirable for married sons and daughters to live in the same area as their parents or grandparents and it is equally important for a mother-in-law to live with the family where that

1515
is possible. However, that does not necessitate the selling of council houses. Good housing management policy can achieve the same result.
The Glasgow surveys proved that council tenants who said that they were in favour of the sale of council houses did not necessarily want to buy the houses in which they lived. The sale of council houses or, indeed, the purchase of a house—council or otherwise—is equated in the minds of many with moving and a freedom of choice. When a tenant in Easterhouse is asked whether he would like to buy a house his reaction is to say "Marvellous". He thinks that he would lige to buy a house in Knights-wood or Mosspark. The surveys have not been done in sufficient depth. Although I appreciate the work involved, the surveys are only a superficial examination of why people say that they would like to buy a house.
I concede immediately that the great advantage of owner-occupation is mobility. If there is a tragedy and it means that someone has to reduce his commitments, that can be done more easily and more readily within the framework of owner-ocupation. If, on the other hand, there is need for a change of job or, indeed, the need to get a job, in spite of the efforts made by the SSHA and some co-operative local authorities, again I admit that, by and large, there is greater mobility in owner-occupation.
The tragedy of it is that in many of the working-class areas there is a failure to appreciate that people are not necessarily getting the best deal out of a subsidised rented system. That depresses me. They do not appreciate or they do not know the tremendous tax advantages that people in owner-occupation in certain circumstances can obtain. A process of education so required for ordinary people who, in certain circumstances, are not getting a good deal simply because they are scared, or reluctant, or just do not know how to operate the system to their best advantage.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned three other matters: housing management and, linked with that, direct payment of rent and anti-social tenants. We have had discussions with the DHSS about direct payment of rent. My experience is that
1516
that Department is extremely co-operative. If there is a need for direct payment or a recommendation from a social work department or, indeed, from the Department's own information about rent arrears conveyed to it by housing managements, that Department is usually more than willing to put people on direct payment.
I do not see this arrangement as a panacea. There are far too many people in modern society who are willing to opt out of their personal responsibilities if they can get away with it. Therefore, while I am 100 per cent. in favour of helping families who are inadequate or who have pressing problems, I am still 100 per cent. convinced that we should not just throw this matter open and allow people to say "Let someone else take care of the rent. We shall not worry."
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a difficult matter to define. I believe that it can be done only on the basis of looking at each individual case. Nevertheless, in general terms there is no difficulty about getting the co-operation of the DHSS.
Anti-social tenants are a vexed problem. I see this problem being reduced through sound housing management policies. I cannot stress that strongly enough. The recent report of the housing advisory committee highlighted the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill about the lack of professional qualifications among staff in housing management. Indeed, the Scottish Office has nothing to boast about in that respect, because we have one full-time professional with housing management qualifications and in the social work services group I think that there are about 30 or 40 people with social work qualifications.
That is all wrong. We shall not get a reduction in vandalism and in anti-social behaviour, or in glue-sniffing or in all the other social problems that afflict people—many of them in the large housing estates—simply by the injection of more money, and we shall not get improvements simply by the injection of more teachers or, indeed, more social workers, however desirable that may be. We can get such an improvement in housing only by better housing management policies.
The first step in getting a community to accept greater responsibility is for the

1517
people to become involved in their own affairs. This can be done through tenants' co-operatives, perhaps, or in some other way.
Let me put it even more crudely. If I had £5,000 to spend in a housing scheme, I would spend it by appointing an organiser for the local tenants' or residents' association. That would be my priority. Of course, such people can become political and anti-authority. But if we cannot get local people to respond, which would be the purpose of the exercise, to do that person out of his own job after having been in it for a short period during which he has stimulated community interest and a greater sense of individual responsibility—and my contention is that we shall not get that merely with expensive schemes of modernisation, environmental measures
1518
and social workers going in—perhaps we should all chuck it.
I am quite clear about my priority. It is an improved housing management system that will encourage greater responsibility and interest, not the sale of council houses. It will be hard going for those who concern themselves with their own environment. They must ask themselves "What can I do to help?" rather than "When are they going to do something for me?".
That sums up my philosophy and the philosophy of my party in response to the many interesting and fundamental issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Nine o'clock.

  POLITICAL PARTIES (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT)
  POLITICAL PARTIES (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS)
  "DAILY MAIL"
  "DAILY MAIL"
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Employment (Statutory Definitions)
  Employment (Statutory Definitions)
  Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield
  Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Birmingham and Midland Accident Hospital
  Birmingham and Midland Accident Hospital
  Operating Theatres (Staff Safety)
  Operating Theatres (Staff Safety)
  Benefits (Loans)
  Benefits (Loans)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
  Benefits (Accountability)
  Benefits (Accountability)
  St. Mark's Hospital, Finsbury
  St. Mark's Hospital, Finsbury
  Medicine Prescribing
  Medicine Prescribing
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
ENVIRONMENT
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Local Authorities (Land Purchases)
  Local Authorities (Land Purchases)
  Departmental Inspectorate (Central Excavation Unit)
  Departmental Inspectorate (Central Excavation Unit)
  Office Building
  Office Building
  Local Government (Complaints)
  Local Government (Complaints)
  Location of Offices Bureau
  Location of Offices Bureau
  LAW COURTS (GLASGOW)
  LAW COURTS (GLASGOW)
  SHERIFFS
  SHERIFFS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Peter Jay
  Mr. Peter Jay
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Belize
  Belize
  Commonwealth Heads of Government (Conference)
  Commonwealth Heads of Government (Conference)
  Ibrahim El Mabruk
  Ibrahim El Mabruk
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
  LIST OF BODIES TO BE CONSULTED
  LIST OF BODIES TO BE CONSULTED
  Artistic Works (Sales)
  Artistic Works (Sales)
  British Library
  British Library
  Secondary School Reorganisation
  Secondary School Reorganisation
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
TRANSPORT
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  M5 (Contract)
  M5 (Contract)
  Research
  Research
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Distribution (Costs)
  Food Distribution (Costs)
  Feeding Stuffs (Contamination)
  Feeding Stuffs (Contamination)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Land Loss
  Land Loss
  Food Imports and Exports
  Food Imports and Exports
SCOTLAND
  Birds (Protection)
  Birds (Protection)
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  State Hospital, Carstairs
  State Hospital, Carstairs
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Govan (Housing)
  Govan (Housing)
  Economic Affairs
  Economic Affairs
  Coast Protection
  Coast Protection
  Brain Scanners
  Brain Scanners
  Food Supply
  Food Supply
  Royal High School, Edinburgh
  Royal High School, Edinburgh
DEFENCE
  Secretarial Services
  Secretarial Services
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television (Wales)
  Television (Wales)
  Police (Chief Constables' Reports)
  Police (Chief Constables' Reports)
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Pensioners)
  Police (Pensioners)
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Broadcasts (Members of Parliament)
  Broadcasts (Members of Parliament)
  Police (Right to Strike)
  Police (Right to Strike)
  Ibrahim El Mabruk
  Ibrahim El Mabruk
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Police (Resignations)
  Police (Resignations)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Commonwealth Heads of Government (Conference)
  Commonwealth Heads of Government (Conference)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
WALES
  School Examinations (Results)
  School Examinations (Results)
EMPLOYMENT
  Diving and Underwater Training
  Diving and Underwater Training
  Building Materials
  Building Materials
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
ENERGY
  Coal Mining
  Coal Mining
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil Production Platforms
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
INDUSTRY
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Local Government Grants
  Local Government Grants
TRADE
  Shirts
  Shirts
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Cypriot Students
  Cypriot Students
  Boeing 737
  Boeing 737
  Economic Statistics
  Economic Statistics
  Oil Production (Costs)
  Oil Production (Costs)
  Company Reports
  Company Reports
  Middle East and Oil Exporting Countries
  Middle East and Oil Exporting Countries
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies
  Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Company Taxation
  Company Taxation
  Tithes
  Tithes
  Construction Industry (Tax Exemption Certificates)
  Construction Industry (Tax Exemption Certificates)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Appointments)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Appointments)
  OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION (REPORT)
  OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION (REPORT)
  DOCTORS AND DENTISTS (PAY)
  DOCTORS AND DENTISTS (PAY)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BRITISH COUNCIL LANGUAGE LABORATORIES
Lord SEGAL: 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 how many language laboratories have been established by the British Council abroad; and how many more are likely to be established, and where and when.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, 79 laboratories comprising 36 British Council installations, 25 loans and 18 presentations, were established in 40 countries between 1963 and 1977. Five more are likely to be established this year; one in Iran, one in Brazil and three in Saudi Arabia. Further installations are under consideration for British Council centres in Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, Venezuela, Chile, Oman, Syria, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory reply. In view of the recent enormous increase in university fees for foreign students, may I ask him whether the Government would urge the British Council to provide additional courses in advanced English studies for those students who are now denied the chance of coming to study in this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have always thought—I think this view is very widely shared—that as much as possible of language teaching in English should be done in the country of origin. The British Council is an independent organisation but its Royal Charter
1276
includes among its main purposes the promotion and a wider knowledge of the English language overseas. I think it follows that, given the resources of the British Council, as much as possible should be done overseas; a certain amount must be done in this country, but I am in very general sympathy with what my noble friend said.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, bearing in mind the very fine and well-deserved reception that was given to Prince Charles in March by the Government and people of the Ivory Coast when he went there on an official three-day visit, may I ask the Minister to say when it is proposed to set up a British Council English language teaching centre there? I understand there have been moves to that effect. Because among the five new centres to be set up there is no mention of the Ivory Coast, does the noble Lord not feel that it should be possible to expedite matters, bearing in mind that the centre in Senegal, which was opened in 1968 by Her Majesty the Queen, has been most successful?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is most certainly a point which I think the British Council will be glad to consider should there be any addition to the fairly long list that I read to the House of countries where they intend to move immediately. I am sure that they will take full note of what the noble Lord said.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of—
Several noble Lords: Order! Question!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thought that was a question, my Lords. I begin with the words, "May I take this opportunity" May I, therefore, take this opportunity of asking my noble friend—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I was in subjunctive mood. I do not know what else noble Lords opposite want of me. May I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that on both sides of both Houses many of us appreciate, and have seen at work, the work of the British Council, despite the denigration of it by people who do not know? Is he aware that

1277
we would like the British Council to know that we are aware of the work for Britain that has been, and is being, done by many of those who devotedly carry out the Council's work?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am glad to take the opportunity once more of expressing what I think is the general feeling of the House; namely, that the British Council does an excellent job of work, perhaps particularly in the teaching of English, which is, after all—this may he accepted from me as a Welsh man—not prescriptively the language of the English but the international language of the world. As to the subjunctive mood of my noble friend, however subjunctive he may be in form, he is always indicative or even imperative.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the increased charges for overseas students at universities in this country, is it not very desirable, as my noble friend Lord Segal suggested, that there should be teaching in higher English at the various establishments abroad of the British Council?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the British Council is well aware of the need for the phasing of teaching of the English language. I think that probably the priority—I am sure my noble friend will agree—is to teach the fundamentals of English so that those who proceed from that to what is called higher English have a proper basis, idiomatically and otherwise, on which to proceed. It would perhaps be a mistake to jump too far ahead before the fundamentals have been mastered, hut I think the point made by my noble friend is well taken by the British Council.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would be a good thing to teach the language of Heaven, which is the Welsh language?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am inclined to think that the language of Heaven should remain an exclusive property, my Lords.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it has just come through on the tape that
1278
the Chinese have stopped banning Shakespeare, which I am sure will be a great help in this matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure it will be of very great help indeed, culturally and diplomatically.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could the British Council also be urged to emphasise the importance of providing courses in commercial English, which might also help to promote commercial relations with this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure they have that in mind, if not in commission. I think it is fair to emphasise what I said in reply to my noble friend, Lord Brockway; that the basic purpose is to teach English properly and adequately so that it is an instrument of communication and understanding for the largest possible number of people in the host countries, on which movement forward to specialised teaching, like commercial teaching and indeed higher teaching, can be properly based. I think the British Council will read with great interest the report in Hansard of these exchanges.

GIBRALTAR: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS
2.38 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: 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 before signing Annex 2 of the Decision of the Council of Ministers of the EEC on 20th September last (referred to by Lord Harris of Greenwich on 3rd May, cols. 978 and 979) they considered making special arrangements for the inhabitants of Gibraltar to vote in direct elections to the European Parliament.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Government did not overlook the position of Gibraltar in the arrangements for direct elections to the European Parliament, but considered that it would be inappropriate for Gibraltar, which is

1279
not directly represented at Westminster or in the present Assembly, to be included in these arrangements.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him, first, why not Gibraltarians, who are very interested in this transaction? And, secondly, what consultations took place between the Government of Gibraltar and Her Majesty's Government? Is he aware that I have just received a letter from Gibraltar which says:
"My Gibraltar passport reads, 'Holder is defined as a United Kingdom national for Community purposes'."?
Have the Gibraltarians been told that that excludes them from voting?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the true answer to that is that Gibraltar Ministers are able at all times—and communication is in no way difficult—to make their views known through the Governor to the British Government, who invariably take the Colony's interests into account in all relevant matters discussed within the Community context. I would add that we have quite recently, I believe last Monday, received a communication from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. No reply has yet been sent, but our reply will be very carefully considered before it is despatched.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, is the Minister convinced that the Gibraltarians have been fairly treated in this matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, completely, my Lords. One could go into some detail on this. I am sure that Gibraltar Ministers and indeed Gibraltarians generally would agree with me that there has always been the most complete rapport between Her Majesty's Government and them, and I am glad to give that assurance to the noble Lord.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, if passports say that the Gibraltarians should be treated for passport purposes as Community citizens, may I ask the noble Lord to say what that means if it does not allow them to have a vote in the potential European Parliament?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think that it follows from the passport position that they should be represented in this way in the European Parliament. The practicalities are important. Gibraltar is excluded from the application of key aspects of the Community—for instance, the CAP, which is very much a key aspect nowadays, and the common external tariff. As a practical matter, Gibraltar is a tiny, though very important, community of some 20,000 people which can neither have an EMP—and I am told that that stands for "European Member of Parliament"—of its own, nor fit logically into any United Kingdom region or constituency. Furthermore, there is the broad analogy of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. While I do not press the analogy too far, it is a fact that neither of those territories, if I may so describe them, figures in representation at Strasbourg. There is, therefore, a certain analogy with the position of Gibraltar.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, aware that he appears to have left unanswered a question put by my noble friend Lord Bourne? My noble friend asked, if I heard him right, whether the inhabitants of Gibraltar knew that they had been disfranchised. The Minister's reply was a bit of waffle about what was going on between the British and Gibraltarian Governments and it had nothing to do with the question. May I press him to answer the question?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have already answered. There is very full communication between the two Governments. I cannot see that there is any reason to think that either the Government or the people of Gibraltar were unaccountably unaware of the position. This has been a continuing position since the Access Treaties were negotiated and it would surprise me greatly if people on either side were unaccountably unaware of the position. We have proceeded, I believe, on broad analogies and on practicalities, with everybody knowing what the position is. As I have just told the House and as I once more remind your Lordships, we have received a communication from the Chief Minister which we are now considering and shall reply to in due course.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that is just more waffle. Is it to be supposed that the British nation knows what is going on between Her Majesty's Government and some other Government unless it is informed? My noble friend's question was whether the Gibraltarian population knew that it had been disfranchised. The reply by the noble Lord, to the effect that he had no reason to suppose that they did not, is not an answer to my noble friend's question.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I respectfully disagree. It may well be that people are not aware of exchanges between Governments. That is not to say that what is generally known through the normal media—and surely this is a situation which was not secret from anyone—is not generally known to both Governments and populations.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is all a big surprise to the Gibraltarians themselves?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that remains to be seen. I have said that we have received a communication from the Chief Minister. We are considering it with all due respect and care and shall be replying to it in due course.

LAKE DISTRICT: POWER BOATS
2.45 p.m.
Viscount ROCHDALE: 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 when the Secretary of State for the Environment can be expected to give his decisions on the Inspector's report following the public inquiry held during the summer of 1976 on the use and control of power boats in the Lake District.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, this decision rests with my
1282
right honourable friend the Home Secretary, although he is consulting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the questions of policy that concern him. The barrister who held the public inquiry submitted his report to my right honourable friend in March. It raises issues of principle about how far people's freedom to use a National Park for sport and recreation can properly be restricted. My right honourable friends need some time to consider these issues, but a decision will be reached as soon as possible.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but it does not take us much further than the reply that was given in writing in another place at the beginning of March. Can the noble Lord say whether it is to be inferred from his reply that, whatever the resulting orders may say—and there are three—they are unlikely to come into operation before 1978? Does he agree that the longer the delay the more entrenched will become those who practise the various activities, some dangerous, some disturbing, which the draft orders were intended to curb?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I indicated in my original reply, quite complicated issues are involved in this matter. Certainly, my right honourable friend is anxious to give his judgment as soon as he can and, as I understand the situation, he will then decide when the orders should come into operation. Certainly, there are difficulties here, but my right honourable friend understands perfectly the desire of many people to have a decision made and he is studying the matter at the moment.
Lord WADE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the attraction of the Lake District lies not only in the beauty of the landscape but also in the peace and quiet which is, or was, associated with it? May I take it that that is one of the factors that are being taken into account in considering the control of the further use of power boats?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; that is clearly one of the factors that arise.

MOZAMBIQUE: LOAN AGREEMENTS
2.48 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 how much of the £15 million loan to Mozambique has been advanced, to what uses the money is being put and what are the terms of repayment.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a £5 million loan agreement was signed with the Mozambique Government last August. Almost all of this has now been committed for the purchase of British goods. The agreement for the balance of £10 million, to finance specific development projects, has not yet been finalised. Both loans will be repaid over 25 years. They are interest free, and will have a seven years' grace period on repayment of principal.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but may I ask her to bear in mind that the Mozambique Government are still encouraging guerrilla activities around their borders? Would she not agree that it is a very bad time when the Police Federation here is meeting in a militant mood (something that most of us here deplore) for the Government not to make it abundantly clear that they are against subsidising guerrilla activities—albeit indirectly—rather than being on the side of law and order?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Government have made it abundantly clear that they do not and have not supported guerrilla activities. Every penny of the loan has been agreed by the Government of Mozambique as well as our own Government to be for peaceful purposes. For each order, there is an end certificate of use. I have said that often enough in this House for noble Lords in all parts of the House to accept it.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she considers that Mozambique, the recipient of the loan mentioned in the Question, is or is
1284
not a Communist country? I understand that that has been a matter of dispute in the Foreign Office for some time.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am not aware that it is a Communist country. I think that it has Marxist leanings, but Her Majesty's Governments, whatever their complexion, have always made it a rule to give aid to the poorest people and those who are in the greatest need. They have not used the political character of the nation in question as one of the main considerations.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, will the Minister dissociate herself from the suggestion that the police in this country have any association with, or intention of taking part in, guerrilla activity?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I am so sorry, my Lords; I had not grasped that implication. Of course I endorse what my noble friend says.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, last year the noble Baroness gave the assurance that the Government would make sure that the funds which were provided in this way went for the purpose for which they were intended. Arising out of that reply, is it to be understood, since we now have full diplomatic representation in Mozambique, that the Government are satisfied, through their representatives, that the necessary accounts for making sure of the manner in which the money is spent do now exist and are open to the inspection, as she said, of our representatives?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how much of the money is supposed to have gone into Swiss banks?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I have no knowledge of that, my Lords, but I regard it as a slightly unworthy suggestion.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of

1285
the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will repeat a Statement on increases in social security benefits.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Seear over the Third Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Amulree be added to the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure in the place of the Lord Wade.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ENERGY POLICY
2.52 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES rose to call attention to the energy problems facing this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this subject to your Lordships' House, I think I should explain at the start that I speak on behalf of nobody except myself. I am not speaking on behalf of a particular Party or a Government, and although I am fortunate enough to be a Member of the Committee of your Lordships' House which deals with the subject of energy in relation to the European Communities, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, will deal with that part
1286
of the subject, and so I propose to roam rather widely over the whole range of this subject.
We have had several debates on the question of energy, which over the last few years has become one of the most dominant subjects governing the whole economies not only of this country and of Western Europe but of America and of the developing countries, and indeed the Soviet Union, also, is involved in this problem. It is a worldwide problem, and a problem of very considerable importance. We in this country are probably faced with rather narrower choices than many countries, yet with a somewhat wider range of options than others. We are fortunate in that we have over the past few years gained access to the oil and the gas of the North Sea, and this is of very great importance. Also, we were one of the first countries to develop nuclear energy. We have very considerable coal reserves as well. So we are in many ways more fortunate than other countries.
But despite all that, the constraints upon us are considerable, and these constraints arise in a number of ways. First, if one has resources—as we have observed with the North Sea—the winning of those resources is an immensely complicated and expensive business. It is not something which we get for nothing, and when we get the oil from the North Sea it effectively costs us about five times as much as the cost of producing oil in the Middle East. So it is not a cheap source of energy; it is an expensive source. Nevertheless, it may at the time be extremely valuable to us.
There is a similar situation regarding our coal reserves. We know that these reserves are very considerable, but the cost of exploiting them is enormous. I believe that the latest estimate of the Coal Board for developing new fields (the Selby field and others) over the next 10 years is about £3,500 million. This is merely the capital cost of developing those coalfields. In other words, it is not cheap. The coal is there, but it is not just a matter of going out and picking it. We have to win it at immense cost.
The same is true when we come to consider nuclear energy. We know that to build a nuclear power station—one of

1287
the massive ones—will probably cost us up to £1,000 million; certainly over £600 million. There again we have to pay for the energy we get. It is interesting to note that when one tries to do these things quickly they become far too expensive to be worth while. People sometimes talk about crash programmes. They say, "Oh, don't worry. If things go wrong we can push through a crash programme" My Lords, a crash programme is a disaster programme. It is one of the worst things in which one can possibly indulge, because more energy is used up in building the stations than is got out of them for many years. Let us suppose that we wanted to build in this country 100 nuclear stations. Thank heavens! we do not have to consider this, but let us suppose that we had to do so, and within a period of 10 years. It would ruin the country. It would be quite impossible. All the energy of the country would be used up in producing the energy stations. In other words, there is a certain rate, an economical rate, at which one can proceed, and one cannot go faster than that.
So when we look at the whole problem carefully we find that we are in reality faced with a relatively few choices, because all the estimates are that by the late 1980s—certainly in the 1990s—the world supply of oil will begin to fail to keep up with the world demand for oil. There will be a net shortage of oil all over the world. It may be patchy; here there may be a little more, here there may be a little less. But even the Soviet Union, it is estimated, will by then have become a net importer of oil.
So we cannot dissociate ourselves from what goes on elsewhere in the world. The level of our own resources in the North Sea will have reached a plateau by then, unless a miracle occurs and all of a sudden we find enormous reserves there which have not yet been anticipated. But the probability is that by the 1990s in this country, in Europe, and throughout the world, the demand for oil will be greater than the amount of oil that can be produced in a year.
With regard to other sources, we can talk about coal. We are fortunate in having considerable reserves of coal; but, unlike America, those reserves are very difficult to win. In America they are
1288
fortunate because, especially in the West of America, they have vast reserves of coal which are within a few hundred feet of the surface and which can be won by strip-mining. These reserves, they reckon, amount to probably 200 or 300 years' reserves of coal; and, because they are occurring in enormous seams up to 60 ft. deep, they are extremely cheap to get. Therefore, they can get the coal easily: we can get it, but at a cost. In Europe, except in Germany, they have reached a point where they cannot get much coal, and therefore they are in a worse position.
My Lords, if we invest considerably in coal, which I think we ought to do, we must realise that at the moment we shall do very little more than keep up our present production because the old pits are running down. We shall have to put more money in to get the new pits working, and this is going to cost a lot of money. It is anticipated by the Coal Board that by the end of the century we may be up to 135 to 150 million tons production of coal, but at a very considerable expense; and that, may I remind your Lordships, is not much more than half the amount of coal that was being won years ago. That is because in those days it was much easier to get the coal. There were more miners; they were poorly paid; they were exploited; and we lived on that exploitation and got the coal. We can do that no longer, and therefore we are bound now to realise that we can get the coal but we have to pay for it.
What, then, my Lords, are really the options which lie before us? Primarily, I believe that there are three options. First, there is conservation. Without any doubt at all, the most important thing to do is to conserve energy, because every time you waste energy you are in effect trying to develop a new means of getting energy to correspond to what you have wasted. Therefore, we must conserve; and the possibilities of conservation are considerable, although there again one has to remember that they are not always cheap. For example, the insulation of houses ought to be carried out on an extensive scale. It is much more expensive to insulate old houses than new ones. When you are talking about building a new house, you can include the whole plan of insulation in it, but when you are talking about the millions of old houses in the country it is a much more

1289
difficult and expensive matter. Nevertheless, it should be done; and the waste from factories is probably even worse. One has, therefore, a very considerable scope for conservation. If one thinks of what it is now fashionable to call a scenario for the future, I would say that up to the year 2000 or so we ought to think that any additional energy that we need will come, to the extent of about a quarter, from conservation, I hope. I do not mean that we can save by one quarter over our whole field, but one quarter of the additional amount that we would require in that period.
Then, again with regard to coal, I believe that we must place high emphasis on coal and get a large amount of our extra energy from coal. But when we have done all that we are left with a gap, and oil will not fill it. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no other resource open to us than nuclear energy. It is of course true that there are other possible forms of energy, but one wants to remember, when one is talking about forms of energy which have not yet been developed to a point where they can be very effective, that the lead times are considerable. It is important to bear this in mind. It was known a long time ago, of course. In fact, if one looks at Jonathan Swift, writing nearly 300 years ago about Gulliver's visit to the Grand Academy of Lagado, one finds that Gulliver said:
"I was received very kindly by the warden and went for many days to the academy. Every room has in it one or more projectors;"—
that means somebody carrying out a project, of course, not a cinematograph projector—
"and, I believe, I could not be in fewer than 500 rooms.
"The first man I saw was of meagre aspect, with sooty hands and face, his hair and beard were long, ragged and singed in several places. His clothes, shirt and skin were of the same colour. He had been eight years upon a project of extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. He told me that he did not doubt that in eight years more he should be able to supply the governor's gardens with sunshine at a reasonable rate"—
that is a 16-year lead period, my Lords—
"but he complained that his stock was low and entreated me to give him something as an encouragement to ingenuity, especially since this had been a very dear season for cucumbers."
In other words, my Lords, inflation had set in.
One finds there every problem which faces technological development today, every one of them carefully described by Jonathan Swift. I think it is as well to remember that we have not overcome those problems, even today. We are still faced with them; and, therefore, when we talk about solar energy, when we talk about this form of energy and that form of energy, I would beg your Lordships to remember that it took eight years to get as far as getting some sunbeams out of cucumbers.
My Lords, the problem of this country is at least something which I think can he defined, and can be probably contained, over the period of this century. What I am not happy about is whether the world problems can be contained in the same way. I believe that in the short-term, not in the long-term, the world problems are much graver than the problems of this country. This is because, if we look at Europe, we find, as I have said, that there is no country in Europe which has all the resources that we have in the energy field; and if we look across at America we find that, although it has immense resources, it is the most profligate of all countries in its use of energy, and it will take a tremendous effort in America to ensure that the conservation and proper use of energy proceeds in a way which makes it possible for them to have an energy policy at all. This in fact they perfectly well realise.
Many of your Lordships will have heard of the book which has just come out, published by one of these bodies which always operates under a series of initials. It is called the Workshop on Alternative Energy Strategies, which is at MIT, and the book is called The Global Prospects of Energy. There it states that there are four essentials for an American energy policy. First of all, it says:
"Remember that the supply of oil will cease to meet existing demands before the year 2000; second, that the demand for energy will continue to increase despite Governmental conservation policies; thirdly, that energy reserves must be developed with the utmost vigour."
Then we come to the final point:
"The interdependence of nations in the energy field requires an unprecedented degree of international collaboration in the future. In addition, it requires the will to mobilise finance, labour, research and ingenuity with a common purpose never before attained in times of peace. And it requires it now."
We are getting there a real call for urgency; and I would submit that it is playing with

1291
this issue if we do not face these real problems and if we airily dismiss them by saying, "Oh, something will turn up". What will turn up will be a very chilly, frigid future. We can be sure that it is only by international effort in which we all play our part that we have a hope of meeting this world problem of energy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who has started this debate with such a splendidly clear, well-informed and, at points, witty survey and has focused our minds immediately on the urgency of the matter. I am happy that the noble Lord works with myself and other noble Lords on a sub-committee of the European Scrutiny Committee watching energy policy. We have learned in that committee to trust and respect his observations. In the 28th Report of that Committee, which is available to the House today, we have not only recommended that our own report should be debated, but that it should be debated in the wider context of energy as a whole just because of its urgency.
It would be churlish for me to enter upon a debate of this sort at this time without regretting the absence due to illness of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside. He has been of particular support to our committee and his counsel is well known and appreciated by the House as a whole. We wish him an early and full recovery. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, suggested that we face a chilly, frigid future unless we take this matter seriously. I had already intended to say that this is a debate about thin gruel at the top table. It is a debate on the faltering stewardship of a critical resource of civilised living.
Some of us particularly urged that there should be such a debate at this time because on 14th June the Energy Ministers of the European Community will be meeting in Brussels to discuss the alarming situation and to examine it in the light of three documents recently published by the European Commission. Two are on energy use to date; and those two include one with a Jeremiah-type warning that
1292
performance in reducing the West's dependence on imported energy has been nothing like satisfactory. The second is a further Jeremiad on the state of the coal industry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred with such emphasis. The Commission most solemnly warn:
"There is a progressive deterioration in the coal industry and in many cases receipts no longer cover costs despite subsidy".
That warning is borne out by figures made available by the Department of Energy here showing that Britain's coal output actually fell nearly 7 per cent. over the period 1973 to 1976.
If the message from the European Commission is sad, sadder still it is that our committee found some serious shortcomings in the Commission's documents which can only undermine their credibility: cunning is the dark sanctuary of incapacity. The Commission admitted that their figures were highly tentative. In addition, we found that their assumptions were not always justified, that objectives and forecasts were not clearly distinguished; in perhaps less polite language, one might say that the wish was being father to the thought. We found that the Commission were more interested in policy than in analysis, and we felt that the Commission would do well to concentrate on the successes and failures of national policies and on the reasons for them which so badly need to be brought into the open.
The very short point about the Energy Council meeting on 14th June is the stark fact, to which the noble Lord has already referred, that the industrial West threatens to run short of oil and gas energy well before the end of the century, that nuclear energy development has proved to be a disappointment and is going slowly, that the possibilities of hydro are limited and that coal output is at best stagnant. Other sources must therefore be found in the next 15 to 20 years and, even supposing that they are found, the transition from a civilisation dependent on coal, oil and gas to these other sources will require political management of a far higher order than the world has seen since the OPEC countries took up their position.
No doubt new resources will be found or will be invented and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, pointed out, of course, at a price. No doubt economic levels everywhere will, as they say,

1293
"adjust". But what does "adjust" mean? Since no political entity will plan for permanent dependence on uncontrollable outside supplies, we must expect the consolidation of some political blocs and the break-up of others. History is not empty of severe examples of primitive peoples overwhelming sophisticated civilisations and, within a century, reducing the vanquished population by half. One thinks of the Slav invasions of the Roman Empire and the Mongol invasions of China.
My Lords, consider who, for us in Britain, are our energy neighbours. There is the European Community aiming at something like a half dependence on imported energy and, therefore, with their eyes sharply fixed on our own offshore. Across the Atlantic there is a gigantic American import demand. As for the Soviet Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has just drawn our attention, it appears that that country is heading to be an importer of energy, quite soon, by about 1985. Then, what about the teeming Third World of developing countries whose access to energy holds the key to their industrialisation, and therefore to the conquest of the explosive population pressures now pushing so urgently on their subsistence economy? I believe that only in Eurasia; that is to say, South-East Asia and the Middle East, is there abundance, and the question arises: On what terms is that abundance to be available to others? Energy may make more fortunes than prudence; but with energy at the base of an industrial society, and therefore with energy the touchstone of sovereignty and independence, we are forced to ask ourselves: Can an independent West, an independent European Community, survive even if it achieves independence of foreign supplies up to 50 per cent. by 1985?
My Lords, could the European Community have an energy policy? I believe that so long as the main members of it pull apart, so long as their attitude to the Community is what they call in Brussels a menu à la carte—you work together when you are in trouble, and only then—so long as it fails to command the loyalty of the common citizen there will be no common industrial objective; there will be no common industrial policy and therefore there will be no hope of a common
1294
energy policy which could prove to be the touchstone of its survival as a political entity.
Surely, this is where the United Kingdom conies in and has a great role to play. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has pointed out, it is known; and in earlier reports that our Committee submitted to your Lordships' House we have made it clear that relative to the immediate present—that is to say, the next 20 years or 30 years at the outside—thanks to the offshore, they in the EEC want energy, we in the United Kingdom have it. Thanks to coal, in the near future Britain has a far better prospect than any of her neighbours of indigenous energy resources with an enormous surplus for export.
Surely, here is our negotiating muscle. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he replies, will be able to touch on this. I am sure that all Members of my Committee, indeed the whole House, are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is available today to reply to this very important debate. I hope he will be able to reply to these questions: First of all, how far are we British using in the Community what I would call our energy muscle to secure intelligent and realistic policies? One wonders whether we are using that same muscle in regard to our negotiations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, where again the prospect of offshore energy lies to our hand and to our advantage.
What could be the essentials of a community policy in this field? First, we must recognise that we need a calendar of decades, not years and certainly not months. All the propositions for alternative sources take a long time. Any power station takes six years or more to produce; an offshore oilfield from discovery to production takes at least six years; and when we come to fusion, which, if I may use simple language, is an attempt to bottle a sunspot, that looks like 45 or 50 years away, even if there was agreement now as to where the next step should be sited. Surely a right energy policy will determine what are the likely sources, and will determine the right balance of research and development between exploration and invention as the first option; exploitation as the second; and conservation as the third.

1295
With regard to conservation, may I remind your Lordships that it is not only a question of switching off lights at home, double-glazing the windows or stopping draughts. In industry and the actual conversion of coal to electricity, there is an enormous wastage, up to something like 60 per cent. That is an area that clamours for research. A right policy will secure a suitable but, I take it, flexible balance between the claims of these three research areas. Finally, a right policy will provide the means of encouraging investment, not only public sector investment but private sector investment also, and will protect it—may I add this in parenthesis—without any kind of retrospective change of the ground rules where private enterprise investment is concerned.
When one speaks of policies and chooses between areas of research, all the pet panaceas emerge, whether it is wind, solar power, tides or my own personal pet, wave energy—perhaps I should declare an interest in that I am a director of a small company engaged in promoting that—whether it is breeder reactor developments, whether it is the establishment of processing and enrichment alongside as one way of avoiding hazards, whether it be the consumption of spent fuel.
All these are possibilities; but surely these exciting possibilities have blinded us to a major policy decision which is staring us in the face. I come back to coal. Not only has coal been described as a portable climate, but there is any amount of it. As I daresay we may hear later and more authoritatively from my noble friend Lord Bessborough, as rapporteur of the Committee of Technology in the European Parliament, they there and others here have discerned that there are now resources of coal available, albeit at a price, to a far greater extent than was imagined 10 years ago. Thanks to the new developments in seismic surveying, which has been largely prompted by the oil industry, it is now possible to survey this country; and the National Coal Board have a rolling programme of exploration looking for new sources. Think how that contrasts with the day of the unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Robens, who was appointed to chair the NCB to close collieries down! Then the idea was: we do not want more: we want less.
1296
Now there is a programme for discovering more, and they have found any amount. We believe there is still much more to be found.
Not only is there now a knowledge of greater coal resources, but there are new possibilities of sophisticated use ranging from the power station at the pithead, to gasification, fluidisation and colloidal use. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, is likely to refer to this. What holds this up? In an earlier report to this House, our Committee observed that when the European Commission forecast coal production could be maintained at about the present level, we said that that depended on two assumptions: one was adequate investment, the other was the backing and support of the labour force.
My Lords, there is no problem so great that it cannot be ignored by those countries, those Governments, those Parliaments, those citizens, who choose to bury their heads in the sand. In the coal industry there is a grave conflict which has to be faced. May I venture to say that when I was a Member of another place I sat for a mining constituency. I knew all the collieries in my constituency. Although we might have had our differences politically, I never heard a harsh word from my constituents working in those dark, cavernous recesses of the earth. I am not anti-mining; I am pro-mining. I am not anti-miner; I am pro-miner.
We must face the fact that no matter what the investment, the mining community fears that enough output to give a surplus for export would threaten their own wage bargaining power. Here is the heart of the immediate British and Community energy policy crisis. It is one from which we avert our eyes as if it were something indecent. As I have said, there is no problem so great that it cannot be ignored by those who are determined to do so.
I want to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the National Coal Board's Plan for Coal is anything like enough. It is grandiose indeed, but is it anything like grand enough? I want to ask whether the Coal Board are shouting at the pitheads that new methods to enable one man to do the work of 40 do not mean 39 redundancies but 40 times the

1297
output. That is the message which surely has to be megaphoned up and down the country. Forty times the output would give Britain a new voice in the EEC and the EEC a new voice in the world. By the same token, in the Community, are we pressing for a target of coal production merely to maintain things as they are or to go further and achieve many times better?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his most interesting speech, but would he not agree that it is impossible to compare coal mining with a factory, and that no matter what capital we have got, if we have not the manpower to cut the coal we cannot get anywhere? Also, unless we look at the kind of machinery that is being used, we are producing more coal dust than real coal, and wasting energy that way.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention. In fact it leads on to what I was about to say. While I would not attempt to enter into a dispute as to whether coal dust is a waste or a "plus" resource, because others more competent than I will tackle that later on, I would say this: somebody has said of appeals to Government:
"We do not ask them to be brave, but we ask them to be sensible, which is more difficult."
So I should like to put this question, in the nicest possible way: in the Community, and with regard to the forthcoming meeting of Energy Ministers, what is the situation on protecting investment in energy? The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has more than once been courteous enough to answer questions I have put about the Minimum Safeguard Price for oil—otherwise known as the MSP when my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is not on the Front Bench, because he does not like acronyms. But whether it is MSP or whether it is protecting the Community from cheap coal imports, which are a threat to investment, I hope we shall have some word from the noble Lord as to the Government's approach and purpose.
Secondly, to come back to United Kingdom policy, why should there be
1298
any serious resistance to miners retiring at 60? Why resist miners retiring at 50, or 40, or 35? Why not be quite frank and set out to buy them out, in the way the dockers have been bought out, and exclude from the coal-face anyone who has not got a B.Sc. and is probably under the age of 35? It is not that we need a great many more miners. What we do need is the application of the mining force we have got to the best available equipment which, however, I shall not detain your Lordships now by trying to describe.
In the context of world energy generally, a new balance of power must result from two already visible conflicts. First, the Western and industrial nations are competing with the developing Third World for still finite resources, and that competition is beginning to be apparent. Secondly, bitter European and Japanese competition with the United States is surely at hand for access to Middle East oil, and no doubt later to that of South-East Asia. Those two conflicts are only beginning to he seen, but they are going to be serious.
To avert them there are two long-term possibilities. One is to find the philosopher's stone which, instead of turning all to gold, will uncover and harness infinitely renewable energy sources. The alternative is more drastic still and perhaps just as difficult. It is to recognise that our troubles do stem from an industrial machine that we have been brought up with and have ourselves taken steps to advance; to recognise that its idolatory of material wealth, of endless consumption, needing still more consumption to keep it ticking, has moulded our so-called growth philosophy to the point of absurdity, until we actually believe in infinite growth inside of a finite environment.
So, my Lords, I suggest that an energy policy demands an energy philosophy; an energy philosophy demands a social philosophy; a social philosophy demands a moral philosophy, and a moral philosophy demands a choice of values. No society, certainly no Parliament and quite certainly no political Party, which fails to address itself to the enormity of this folly deserves to survive unpunished. As Pascal said:
"We run carelessly to the precipice after we have put something before us to prevent us from seeing it".
3.35 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps this is a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend David Ennals in another place. With the leave of the House, I will now repeat the Statement made in another place which is as follows:
"In accordance with Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975 I reviewed the present level of benefits before the end of the 1976–77 financial year, and formally determined that they needed to he increased. Increases will be paid from the week beginning 14th November, which is one year after the last uprating.
"Under the Act pensions and other long-term benefits must go up in line with the rise in earnings or prices, whichever is greater, and short-term benefits must rise in line with prices. During the 12 months to November 1977 prices are expected to rise faster than earnings, so the increase in prices will be the benchmark both for long and for short-term benefits.
"In the Financial Statement published at the time of my right honourable friend the Chancellor's Budget, prices were forecast to rise by 13 per cent. between the last quarter of 1976 and the last quarter of this year. Having given full consideration to all relevant matters, I am satisfied that this forecast represents the most reliable guide available to me of the likely movement of prices between last November and this November. I expect the rate of inflation to fall during the next six months well below the year-on-year rate represented by the April monthly figure which was published last week. The factors that gave rise to that rate were foreseen and fully taken into account in the forecast I have mentioned.
"When this Government came to Office in February 1974 pensions stood at £7·75 and £12·50. I have decided that from this November the single pension will go up to £17·50 and the married couples pension to £28, cash increases of £2·20 and £3·50 over the present rates. This is an increase of nearly fourteen-and-a-half per cent.; and for married couples it equals the
1300
biggest cash rise ever—the one we made shortly after returning to power in 1974. The increases will also apply to the standard rate of widows' pensions and to invalidity pensions.
By November we will have far more than doubled pensions compared with the rates paid by the previous Government. Even after allowing for inflation, by last November this Government had increased the real value of pensions and other benefits by 15 per cent. This November's increase should cover inflation since the last uprating and provide a further increase in real purchasing power.
"Many pensioners will also be glad to know that this year, for the first time, the uprating order will change the earnings rule limit, in accordance with the recent Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The limit will go up from £35 to £40.
"Short-term benefits for sickness and unemployment will go up by £1·80, from £12·90 to £14·70, for single persons; and for a married couple they will rise by £2·90, from £20·90 to £23·80 per week. Maternity allowance and injury benefit will go up by the same amounts. Injury benefit will become £17·45 a week for the single person and £26·55 for the married man with a dependent wife. War and industrial injuries disablement and widow's pensions will go up in line with long-term benefits. For example, the 100 per cent. rate of pension for war disablement or for work injury will go up from £25 to £28·60. There will be comparable increases in the additional allowances which can be paid with these pensions.
"I now turn to the civilian disabled. The therapeutic earnings limit, which is applicable to all the incapacity benefits, will go up from £9 to £10 a week. I am glad to confirm that, from the week beginning 14th November, disabled married women unable to go out to work and unable to do their housework will be eligible for the noncontributory invalidity pension. There will be a more detailed announcement on this later.
"The House will also recall that I have already announced an increase of £2 in the mobility allowance with effect

1301
from November. For supplementary benefit, the cash increases in the main scale rates will be the same as those in the related National Insurance benefits, and they will come into force at the same time. For the present at least, there will continue to be five separate children's supplementary benefit rates, related to age; the proposal we have had under consideration to reduce the number of these rates will be studied further as part of the review of the supplementary benefits scheme.
"Also in November, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will increase the discretionary additions for extra heating from 70p to 80p from £1·40 to £1·60, and from £2·10 to £2·40. The discretionary addition for special dietary needs will go up from 75p to 90p, and from £1·75 to £2·10.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has it in mind to make appropriate adjustments in the needs allowances for the rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes. He will be consulting his Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances.
Following are the details referred to above:—
DETAILS OF NEW RATES OF BENEFIT
The following are the new rates:

MAIN INCREASED CONTRIBUTORY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY BENEFIT RATES

Existing Weekly Rate £

Proposed Weekly Rate £

Standard rate of invalidity, widow's and Category A retirement* pensions

15·30

17·50

Category B retirement pension at the higher rate* and widowed mother's allowance:

Increase of invalidity pension and Category A retirement pension for wife or other adult dependant

9·20

10·50

Category B retirement pension at the lower rate*

Earnings limit for retirement pensioners and wives of retirement and invalidity pensioners

35·00

40·00

Standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefits:

Higher rate

12·90

14·70

Increase for wife or other adult dependant

8·00

9·10

Lower rate

9·20

10·50

Widow's allowance (first 26 weeks of widowhood)

21·40

24·50

Maternity allowance

12·90

14·70

*An age addition of 25p is payable to retirement pensioners who are aged 80 or over

"The full-year cost of the whole of this uprating, including the increase in supplementary benefits and in heating and dietary additions, is just under £1,500 million. Nearly £1,250 million of this will fall on the National Insurance Fund and will be taken into account in the annual review of contributions in the autumn. Any changes in contribution rates for 1978–79 resulting from that review will of course require the approval of Parliament.
"For the convenience of the House, full details of all the new rates of benefit are available in the Vote Office and will be circulated in the Official Report. I shall he laying the necessary draft up-rating order, under Section 124 of the Social Security Act, after the Recess. The order will be accompanied by a Government Actuary's report in the normal way.
"I am sure the whole House will welcome these further measures to protect the position of pensioners and other beneficiaries in these difficult times".
My Lords, that ends the Statement.

Existing Weekly Rate £

Proposed Weekly Rate £

Invalidity allowance payable with invalidity pension, when incapacity began before age:

35

3·20

3·70

45

2·00

2·30

60 for men or 55 for women

1·00

1·15

Attendance allowance:

Higher rate

12·20

14·00

Lower rate

8·15

9·30

Retirement pension for persons over pensionable age on 5 July 1948 and for persons over 80*:

Higher rate

9·20

10·50

Lower rate

5·60

6·30

Non-contributory invalidity pension

9·20

10·50

Invalid care allowance

9·20

10·50

Increase of con-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance for wife or other adult dependant

5·60

6·30

Mobility allowance

5·00

7·00

Guardian's allowance

6·45

7·40

Child's special allowance; increases for children of widows, invalidity, non-contributory invalidity and retirement pensioners, and invalid care allowance beneficiaries:

First child

6·45

7·40

Any other child

5·95

6·90

Increases for children of all other beneficiaries:

First child

3·05

3·50

Any other child

2·55

3·00

*Excluding the 25p age addition.

MAIN INCREASED INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFIT RATES

Existing Weekly £

Proposed Weekly Rate £

Injury Benefit*†

15·65

17·45

Disablement benefit (100 per cent, assessment)*

25·00

28·60

Unemployability supplement‡

15·30

17·50

Special hardship allowance (maximum)

10·00

11·44

Constant attendance allowance (normal maximum)

10·00

11·40

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

10·00

11·40

Industrial death benefit:

Widow's pension during first 26 weeks of widowhood

21·40

24·50

Widow's pension now payable at £15·85 rate

15·85

18·05

Widow's pension now payable at £4·59 rate

4·59

5·25

*The Rates for beneficiaries not over the age of 18 will also be increased.

†Increases for adult dependants and children will be the same as those payable with unemployment and sickness benefits.

‡Invalidity allowances and increases for adult dependants and children will be the same as those payable with invalidity pensions.

MAIN INCREASED WAR PENSION RATES
All ranks receive the same increases, officers' rates being expressed in pounds per annum.

PART I: DISABLEMENT BENEFITS

Existing Weekly Rate £

Proposed Weekly Rate £

Disablement pension for private at 100 per cent, rate

25·00

28·60

Unemployability allowances*:

Personal allowance

16·30

18·60

Increase for wife or other adult dependant

9·20

10·50

Comforts allowance:

Higher rate

4·30

4·90

Lower rate

2·15

2·45

Allowance for lower standard of occupation (maximum)

10·00

11·44

Constant attendance allowance:

Special maximum

20·00

22·80

Special intermediate

15·00

17·10

Normal maximum

10·00

11·40

Half and quarter day

5·00

5·70

Age allowance with assessments of:

40 and 50 per cent.

1·80

2·00

Over 50 and not exceeding 70 per cent.

2·75

3·10

Over 70 and not exceeding 90 per cent.

3·90

4·40

Over 90 per cent.

5·50

6·20

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

10·00

11·40

Severe disablement occupational allowance

5·00

5·70

Existing Annual Rate £

Proposed Annual Rate £

Clothing allowance:

Higher rate

36·00

40

Lower rate

23·00

25

*Invalidity allowances and increases for children will be the same as those payable with invalidity pensions.

Part II: DEATH BENEFITS

Existing Weekly Rate £

Proposed Weekly Rate £

Widow's pension—private's widow:

Standard rate

19·80

22·70

Childless widow under 40

4·59

5·25

Rent allowance

7·50

8·60

Age allowance for elderly widows:

Between age 65 and 70

1·95

2·20

Over age 70

3·90

4·40

Widower's pension

19·80

22·70

Adult orphans

15·30

17·50

MAIN INCREASED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES

Existing Ordinary Rate £

Existing Long-Term Rate* £

Proposed Ordinary Weekly Rate £

Proposed Long-Term Weekly Rate* £

Ordinary scale:

Husband and wife

20·65

24·85

23·55

28·35

Person living alone

12·70

15·70

14·50

17·90

Any other person aged:

Not less than 18

10·15

12·60

11·60

14·35

Less than 18 but not less than 16

7·80

—

8·90

—

Less than 16 but not less than 13

6·50

—

7·40

—

Less than 13 but not less than 11

5·35

—

6·10

—

Less than 11 but not less than 5

4·35

—

4·95

—

Less than 5

3·60

—

4·10

—

Blind Scale:

Husband and wife:

If one of them is blind

21·90

26·10

24·80

29·60

If both of them are blind

22·70

26·90

25·60

30·40

Any other blind person aged:

Not less than 18

13·95

16·95

15·75

19·15

Less than 18 but not less than 16

8·70

—

9·80

—

Less than 16 but not less than 13

6·50

—

7·40

—

Less than 13 but not less than 11

5·35

—

6·10

—

Less than 11 but not less than 5

4·35

—

4·95

—

Less than 5

3·60

—

4·10

—

Existing Weekly Rate £

Proposed Weekly Rate £

Non-householder rent allowance

1·20

1·45

Attendance requirements:

Higher rate

12·20

14·00

Lower rate

8·15

9·30

Discretionary additions to supplementary benefit:

Heating additions

·70

·80

1·40

1·60

2·10

2·40

Central Heating additions

·35

·40

·70

·80

1·40

1·60

Dietary additions

·75

·90

1·75

2·10

*Where the claimant or a dependant is aged 80 or over a further 25p is added to these long-term rates.

3.46 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for repeating the Statement. But I must say that at the heart of the Statement lies a contradiction, because Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975, the section to which the Statement refers, charges the Secretary of State with the task of ensuring that pensions and other benefits retain their value. I shall not read out Section 125, but it is quite specific on this point, and so is the Statement, because the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said—and I quote the Statement—
"… so the increase in prices will be the benchmark both for long and for short-term benefits".
This is an essential point here. But we have a contradiction, because the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State assured another place that he expected the rate of inflation to fall during the next six months.
Welcome as this undoubtedly is, we have to ask ourselves whether or not he is right. Has the Secretary of State for Social Services consulted his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I have no doubt that he has—because the very latest statement on inflation gives us a current rate of no less than 17½ per cent.? We are assured in this Statement that prices are expected to rise by 13 per cent., and the Government consider that this is about right. Our conclusion—and we have only the evidence of our eyes, the shops and the statements before another place and your Lordships' House—is that the Government may well be wrong. Inflation may be higher than 13 per cent., in which case the Government will have failed in their statutory obligation to keep pensions and other benefits in line.
Two courses are open. Either the Government should raise the rates of benefit or they must change the law, because, clearly, the statutory obligation is to keep pensions and other benefits in line with inflation. It is a difficult task—we acknowledge that—for the Secretary of State to ensure six months ahead that his forecasts are right, but there is here a contradiction of the greatest importance.
I turn to certain matters which we welcome. We welcome the fact that the Statement assures us that the disabled married woman who is unable to go out
1310
to work and to do housework will be eligible for the non-contributory invalidity pension. We are assured that a more detailed announcement will be made about this later on, and I am not in a position to comment further at the present moment.
However, the Statement tells us that five separate children's supplementary benefit rates are to be retained. In the past these have been somewhat confusing. If the Government intend to study it, as they say they will, and bring out a review, it will aid those who handle the benefits and those who hope to benefit from them. The Statement does not refer in very specific terms to whether or not the child benefit will be raised. However, we assume that it will be, in line with other benefits. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to clarify that point. I believe the Secretary of State has made a bet and that he is hoping that prices will rise by no more than 14 per cent. We believe that he may well prove, unfortunately, to be wrong. Therefore we should like to know what the Government intend to do about it, because something must be done.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for repeating the Statement made in another place. The Statement says that this uprating should cover inflation since the last uprating and provide a further increase in real purchasing power. This is assuming that the increase in prices from last November to next November is 13 per cent., in which case an increase of 14½ per cent. would allow 1½ per cent. for an increase in real value. However, it seems to me that this is an optimistic assumption to make, in view of the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has already said, that the most recent figure we have is of an inflation rate of 17½ per cent. I very much doubt whether the increase will cover inflation, let alone provide for an increase in real value. That is the crux of the matter.
There is no point in applauding particular figures for particular benefits unless one knows the answer to that question, and it depends upon one's opinion of that answer. However, the uprating should not be regarded as a distribution of Government largesse. Increases due to inflation

1311
should be covered, or nearly covered, by earnings-related contributions without any increase in the percentage contribution rate. We know that earnings-related contributions have been producing surpluses. The Statement says that this uprating will cost the National Insurance Fund £1,250 million extra this year; but that is as against a figure of £1,158 million extra for the uprating last year. Therefore, allowing for the decline in the value of money, this year's extra cost would appear to be less, in real terms.
I welcome the confirmation that from November disabled married women who are unable to go out to work and to do housework will be eligible for the noncontributory invalidity pension. The increase in the mobility allowance from £5 a week to £7 a week, to which the Statement refers, is welcome, but I am afraid that it leaves the mobility allowance totally inadequate for its purpose. We shall watch very carefully to see whether the Government's forecast of the rate of inflation is proved correct. Should the rate prove to be higher, we shall press for an interim review.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is customary to thank noble Lords on the other side who reply to Statements, but at times I am a little troubled when whatever praise can be given to the Government is given so grudgingly. I look forward to the time when at least somebody from the other side, on either Bench, will get up to congratulate the Government on doing a reasonably good job—without carping.
A noble Lord: My Lords, we have!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Then, my Lords, I should like somebody to turn it up in Hansard for me.
To turn to the matter of inflation, I tried to point out that the uprating benefit is related to inflation from last November to this November and not from last April to this April. Secondly, the April-on-April figure is no guide to the inflation we can expect in the second half of the year. It included the price rises due to the Budget; namely, cigarettes, petrol, vehicle excise duty and increases in rates. These are the main items responsible for the increase in prices and,
1312
therefore, in inflation. Thirdly, the April year-on-year figure is not out of line with our expectations.
All I can say is that it is the considereo view of the Government, rightly or wrongly—time will tell, and I am sure noble Lords opposite will not hesitate to remind us if we are wrong—that the amount by which we uprate pensions, starting from next November, will materially increase the real value of pensions. This is because the Government believe that inflation will fall; but, as I say, time will tell. The only other point that was raised was child benefit. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, knows, this is a matter not for the present but for the future and one which my right honourable friend and his Ministers are considering.
3.55 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, as I understand it, the National Insurance Fund is to pay out £1,250 million, a sum of money which will fall on those in work. Therefore I should like to ask the Government whether they think it is in the best interests of the public understanding of what is happening to give all the details of the benefits and then to make us wait six months before we know what the additional contributions will be. We are in great difficulty about rises in incomes. However, to hold out this handful of splendid benefits, as they sound, and then not to tell us how we are going to pay for them is not right.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that it is right, in the sense that there is an obligation, which each Government, since time immemorial, have accepted, to do something for those in the community who are less fortunately placed. In different ways, this has been part of the philosophy of both sides of your Lordships' House. The uprating is to take place in November, and the contributions start in April of each year. The Government are going to review the question of contributions this coming autumn, but they are working to a very tight schedule. The review will take a considerable time, because we have to think out new contributions in relation both to those who will be contributing towards a wholly earnings-related policy and to those who will be in a contracted-out scheme. Certainly I cannot today

1313
give your Lordships any indication of what the increase is likely to be in April next.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, could not the Government at least have given an indication of what is the meaning, in terms of contribution, of the increases that have been given? I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that nobody wants to crab him in any way for announcing increases in benefits. Having had to announce them in the past, I know how very satisfying it is. However, the fact is that then the increases in contributions were announced at the same time. May I suggest to the Government that it is only right that they should announce what is the cost to the working community—and to industry, of course—of the increases? It is only right that we should see what these increases are costing the nation. There is no question of one side crabbing the other. It is just a matter of proper accountancy.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in some respects I take the noble Lord's point and accept what he says. I am trying to say that next April we are embarking on an entirely new system, because of those who are going to contract out and because we are introducing a wholly earnings-related policy. This has made it very difficult. There is nothing sinister in not telling your Lordships; at this present stage we just do not know.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, those of us who have listened to this Statement from this side of the House welcome it. I hate to introduce any acerbity into this debate or to carp about it politically, but I must point out the illogicality of all that we have heard. In the first place, we are told that this is not enough and then, secondly, we are asked who is to pay for it. We have already been told that the contributions will be £1,250,000, so I ask the categorical question: would the Opposition, had they the power at the present moment, do nothing? Or, would they give more than we have given and, if they gave more, would they not have to increase the contribution for National Insurance? Why not greet this welcome help to the underprivileged in our society and face the realities of the economic position? We
1314
know it is difficult; it would be difficult for the Opposition were they in power and it is difficult for us. For heaven's sake stop carping and help Britain to get out of its difficulties!
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, would the noble Lord perhaps realise that suspicious minds might think that giving this agreeable news, which we all welcome, at this time and postponing until November the announcement of the cost of it so far as the working population is concerned, might place the Government at some advantage from an electoral point of view if a General Election took place in October?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, there will be no Election in November.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that there is nothing sinister in this. In any case your Lordships should know the Government well enough to know that there is no reason to be suspicious of them.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I can only reinforce what my noble friends have said from this side of the House. We believe that we should have a statement of account. To announce these very agreeable increases is one thing, but we must know the other side of the hook. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, made certain inquiries and, so far as this side of the House is concerned, our priorities are different. We believe that this is a profoundly disturbing policy for the whole balance of the economy. Nothing has done more harm and, indeed, if a Conservative Government were to be returned this autumn, as we think they could be if there were a General Election, we would change the priorities.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that he is starting his election campaign about 18 months too soon.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I should like to ask one supplementary question. Am I to understand from what the noble Lord has said that the whole cost of the increase between November and April, when higher contributions may take effect. will fall on the taxpayer?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if your Lordships want me to take up the time of the House I can say that in December 1976 the Government actuaries estimated, on certain assumptions about unemployment levels and earnings movements, that the Fund would show an operating surplus of something like £888 million in 1977–78. The effect of the uprating alone will be to reduce the expected surplus to about £680 million. But a further report of the Government actuary will be available when the uprating order is laid, and I am afraid I cannot be of any greater help than that to the noble Viscount.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should like to follow one point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Eccles. The information given to us by the noble Lord, that the Government intend to carry out the decision of Parliament as to the rates of pension which should be payable, is very agreeable. On these occasions there is always a danger that many people will not realise how the money is to be raised. I understand the point mentioned by the noble Lord about the change in the system and therefore the difficulty about saying exactly what the increases will be. I should have thought that this was so important that it was well worth considering giving an estimate of what the increases would be, on the basis of present contributions as an indication, and then saying that possibly the system will be changed between now and then. I believe there is always the danger that we see one side of the picture and not the other.

ENERGY POLICY
4.5 p.m.
Debate continued:
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I wonder whether this is the appropriate moment to attempt to pick up the threads of our energy debate started earlier this afternoon. I, for one, am extremely grateful—as I know are other noble Lords—for the opportunity to discuss this topic again in this Chamber. I had the honour of instigating a similar debate nearly five years ago and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, played an active and constructive part in the debate at that time,
1316
the primary objective of which was to make warning noises about future supplies of energy to this country and to the world.
Since those days those warnings have been heeded, but only to some extent. I find it depressing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, having to say the same things as they did five years ago, and indeed the same things as I did, about conservation, about the role that coal has to play in our energy future, and about the need for a constructive energy policy. It seems that we have not come very far forward from the last occasion on which we discussed this very wide topic. This leads me to ask whether perhaps the time has not come for us to focus in more detail on some of the individual aspects of our energy problems. We have so much expertise in this House that it seems to be rather a waste to dissipate it in a debate with such wide horizons and such wide parameters.
For my part, I want only to look at one side of the subject of energy; namely, that of motor fuel. In the other areas which have already been touched on by the first speakers, the noble Lord and the noble Earl found themselves running up against the same problem as I do with this subject. There is an excess of information, there is an excess of forecasts and tables, all of which, to the likes of myself, sometimes appear confusing and, more often than not, conflicting. The trouble with forecasts about energy requirements for both supply and demand is that they nearly always turn out to be wrong. The figures available for this debate, which have been given in the EEC energy policy document, are no exception. In fact, so much is admitted in paragraph 28 on page 5 where it is stated, in line 2, that:
"Indeed the forecasts in R/2275/76 are indeed recognised by the Commission to be 'highly tentative'."
The repetition of the word "indeed" seems to underline those uncertainties.
We are no better informed by the Central Electricity Board in their latest document entitled Corporate Plan (1977), where here at least the Board try to overcome these difficulties by making out two different scenarios—Energy Case I and Energy Case II—which are based on two different percentages for gross

1317
domestic product up to 1995. The first shows the GDP at 3·3 per cent. per annum, much in line with the trend for the 20-year period from 1953 to 1973. The second (Case II) allows for only minimal enonomic growth coupled with low productivity, thus electricity demand has been calculated on an average 2 per cent. per annum for GDP. This last figure, incidentally, is more in keeping with the Department of Energy's estimate of 2·2 per cent. given to the European Select Committee in January, and matches the 2 per cent. per year growth of energy demand anticipated in the United States of America by President Carter.
My Lords, you pay your money and take your choice as to whether the GDP will be nearer 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. per annum by the year 2000, but no amount of table-studying or statistical analysis of energy supply and demand can achieve very much at this stage. In my opinion, the variable nature of the inputs in such equations make output statistics virtually meaningless in percentage terms. However, we can be quite certain of two common factors; the same factors have brought about this interesting debate. They are that supplies of raw energy will be more scarce in 20 years' time, and that the price of all fuels must rise dramatically as supplies diminish or become more difficult to extract and deliver to the consumer. In this debate I want to concentrate on only one of these supplies, motor fuel, and I will try to show how, in the years after 1984, when the price of petrol and diesel grows unacceptably higher, major social and political changes could occur which may not have been allowed for by any Government so far.
However, before doing so, if noble Lords will bear with me, I want to refer to one more long-term forecast. I believe it to be relevant mainly because of where it has miscalculated. I am referring to the Unilever forecast written by Ronald Brech in 1959 and entitled Britain 1984. It is quite remarkable that the author managed to anticipate accurately and in considerable detail the material changes in all aspects of our daily life over the intervening years. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that his assumption is mainly correct; that is, that by 1984 Britain, unlike George
1318
Orwell's scenario, will become a prosperous place to live in and its citizens more comfortable than ever before. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said recently that this period would be a golden age, and on the whole I am inclined to agree with him.
There is, unfortunately, just one snag which prevents me going all the way with these assumptions. It is, of course, inflation. The Unilever calculations, believe it or not, over the 25-year period were based on an inflation rate of only 1 or 2 per cent. per annum. No allowance had been made for the fall in sterling or the massive increase in fuel prices, but the predicted production and consumption figures remain still very much in line with the current statistics available today. However, the Prime Minister, who must live daily with inflation rates, can still predict a golden age. Did he, therefore, ignore inflation, or did he merely omit to mention the price of putting the gilt on the gingerbread? My Lords, prophets and seers have a special place in history, and perhaps Mr. Callaghan will be included among them.
The point I wish to make to the noble Lord the Minister this afternoon is the same as was made on the banks of the Nile in Biblical times, when Joseph interpreted the Pharaoh's dreams of the seven cows and the seven ears of corn. The Minister will recall that they represented seven years of plenty to be followed by seven years of famine, and indeed they came to pass. If I interpret aright what the two noble Lords have said so far in this debate, and what many noble Lords will no doubt emphasise later, the current statistics before us are proclaiming much the same message, which is that until 1984 there will be energy in abundance but thereafter the predictions are those of diminishing returns, particularly for motor fuels.
If this is accepted, then we must assume that, some radical rethinking will be necessary on the future life of the internal combustion engine, which is, of course, entirely dependent on refined oil products for its variety of functions. I therefore wish to look at oil and gas supplies, like Joseph, in seven-year periods—the seven fat years until 1984, followed by the seven lean years to 1991, then by seven leaner years until 1998.

1319
I think we are all agreed, regardless of whatever growth scenario we might choose for the future, that there will be a steady increase in vehicle registrations until 1984. The totals given by the AA, the Department of the Environment, the Economist, and the Unilever forecast, all indicate a figure in the region of 20 million registrations by 1984. When we consider that the basic costs of owning a motor car today, according to the most recent AA figures, total £25 per week—which, incidentally, are more than the average householder pays for his building society repayments—then by 1984 this figure may have reached £56 per week, if the current rate of inflation of 16 per cent. persists over this period.
Even if the rate of inflation is actually less than 16 per cent., it is unlikely that the cost of car ownership will fall below £50 per week by 1984. Nevertheless, by that date the motor car owner should still possess the same freedoms as he does today, and no doubt he will continue to be prepared to pay for them in much the same way. The reason I believe the private motorist to be so long-suffering is that the motor car is the only practical means of transportation left to modern man that is truly liberal; I mean that no Government have yet dared to restrict the motorist as to when, why or where he is going. I hope that will never come about, but I am afraid it will, and I think this perhaps explains the emphasis Liberals have placed recently on the increases in petrol tax; we take the motorist's freedom seriously.
However, in the seven lean years after 1984 caused by diminishing fuel supplies, the motorist may find himself increasingly restricted, not directly by Government but indirectly through the high price of fuel and fuel taxes; that is, if his car is still powered by an internal combustion engine, which would seem to be the likely assumption from current forecasts of the big motor manufacturers. Therefore, by 1991, at the end of this period, it is not unreasonable to suppose that motoring will once again become an occupation only indulged in by the super-rich, just as it was in the early 1920s. My noble friend adds, "and by Government officials". He may well be right.
I see the next seven leaner years after 1991 witnessing the end of the private
1320
motorist and consequently his freedoms. The reduced fuel supplies and their excessive cost must surely allow essential services only to use the internal combustion engine for their work. The private motorist will have little or no priority after military, agricultural and other Government uses. Travel of all kinds may be restricted, or confined to public transport which uses mainly electrical propulsion. People in rural areas will most likely be forced into conurbations where such services exist, while the motorways, I predict, will remain empty and silent.
My Lords, perhaps this situation was anticipated 2,500 years ago by Tao Te Ching, when he wrote what could prove to be the most accurate long-term economic forecast in recorded history. The translation of what he said is as follows:
"A small country has fewer people.
Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.
Though they have armour and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure.
They are happy in their ways."
These words coming from the distant past may appear to noble Lords to have little or no relevance in a futuristic industrial society forecast for the next century. I have called on them today because of the strong similarities to the conclusions reached in a report prepared by a special energy task force at the request of the United States Department of Commerce, a copy of which I received just before the debate, and about which my noble friend Lord Avebury will no doubt have further points to make.
The conclusions drawn in this report are that by the year 2000 AD American domestic production of petroleum, together with imports, will not suffice to meet demand. By then some 26 million cars will have to be powered by something other than petrol. Before the turn of the century the report predicts. "potential disarray in the transport sector". It goes

1321
on to emphasise the crucial importance of the motor industry finding a non-petrol using engine that is both efficient and pollution-free by the end of the 1980s. If such an engine is not found to be ready by then, the report predicts radical changes in American transport habits with consequent major social and political upheavals. Some experts have already criticised this report as being far too conservative in its conclusions, and they suggest that the time-scale for the crisis should be shortened to the early 1990s. I am aware that in Britain, we believe that we are in many ways better placed to meet such a crisis than the United States. However, the European Economic Community as a whole is not, and the situation in the transport sector will almost certainly become seriously disrupted by 1994 if no replacement is found for the internal combustion engine.
That leads me to ask the noble Lord the following questions. I gave him, I agree, fairly short notice—albeit some notice—of the questions which I intend to ask him. What funds, if any, have been allocated for this purpose by the Government or by the motor industry as a whole? Does the noble Lord agree with the conclusions reached by myself, but, more correctly, by the United States Department of Commerce? Finally, is there any possibility that the Government are unwilling to allocate funds for a replacement of the internal combustion engine in order to accelerate the advent of a Socialist society in which people have no other choice but to use public transport?
Assuming for the moment that there is nothing sinister about the Government's apparent lack of research into a replacement for the internal combustion engine, into which area of technology should the funds—supposing that they are made available—be directed? Without any question I would suggest to the Minister—as I did previously in this House on 14th June 1972—that the answer must lie in the re-introduction of a modern external combustion engine. Since the early 1960s a few people throughout the world have been working on designs to meet the requirements for a noiseless, multi-fuel prime-mover that would be acceptably pollution-free. I have made it my business—or, to be more precise, my hobby—to keep in touch with these developments. So far as I know, I was the only foreigner
1322
to be asked to give evidence to a United States Senate Committee on Urban Transportation in the early 1970s.
The situation today is that there are approximately three prototype designs in the world that could fulfil these conditions. One is in the United States; another is in Australia, which is being strongly backed by the Government; and, finally there is a British design which could turn out to be the most promising of all. I am endeavouring to put the inventors of this engine in touch with a Government agency with a request that enough funds—approximately £50,000—be made available to build a working prototype for proper assessment. If this particular project proves to be impractical, I would hope that the search for a non-petrol using pollution-free vehicle will continue with renewed vigour by both the public and private sectors in Britain.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, say whether this new engine is a brand new engine cycle or something that has been invented previously but is now being worked on again?
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, for his intervention. I did not wish to become more technical than I needed to be in this debate. Basically, it works on well-tried principles and well-proven methods of engineering. There is nothing too problematical about producing such an engine provided that it can fulfil the functions which I have roughly outlined.
It goes without saying that the first country to build such a vehicle in commercial quantities in time to meet the situation which I anticipate in the late 1980s and early 1990s must surely bring considerable benefits to the economy of that country during a period when motor-orientated industries would be in irreversible decline.
I want to conclude where I begun by warning of the dangers of reading too much into statistical forecasts. So much can be extrapolated in the energy business but no more. As a country and a Member of the EEC we should make it our business to keep as many options open as possible in order to maintain an energy programme that has the maximum inbuilt flexibility.

1323
I believe that this is the view of those whose business it is to bear the burden of responsibility for formulating an energy policy and I trust that they will not be deflected from this aim.
The main object of this, I hope, rather short intervention is to draw attention to the very great dangers that lie ahead beyond the life of one Government or two, and beyond the projections of most boardrooms, be they in the private or public sectors. A solution to the transport problem which will start 14 years from today must be found within the next five years if we are to prevent quite unnecessary political and social upheavals created by lack of foresight in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
If I were to sum up my intervention in one sentence it would be as follows. It would be a tragedy of the greatest order if George Orwell's allegorical Socialist State of 1984 became a reality 10 years later than he predicted—not as the outcome of military or ideological struggle, but simply because the free world had run out of gas!
4.26 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, into his visions of the Liberal tendencies of our country being protected by a "Dagenham" or "British Leyland" occupied in making exotic vehicles from Chinese instructions conveyed by knotted ropes. However, I should like to echo the warning issued by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in introducing this debate against Micawberism in the energy field. I must also compliment my noble friend Lord Lauderdale and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on the work of Select Committee F, which, I am told, is presided over by its draconian chairman Lord Lauderdale. I believe that it is setting certain important precedents in the ways in which the European Parliament, its Members and this House could be related. I often wonder how it is that they digest the sheer volume of information which passes through these various committees. Well may the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, say that there is an excess of information in this area.
1324
Of course, energy forecasting is futurology, and it has been said many times that the only certainty about it is uncertainty. Indeed, the forecasts of exponential growth of 3 to 5 per cent. were invalidated by the oil price crisis of 1973. The first conclusion to be drawn is the overriding need to keep open all possible options. This is made more difficult, as has already been said, by the fact that the time-scale, even for a conventional power station, is of the order of seven years—although I never know quite why—whereas the demand can change in something like half that time. I do not want to suggest that keeping open options is merely a policy of drift or non-decision. Nor is it necessarily a policy of backing every horse. However, it is important to ensure that we place our bets each way without becoming irrevocably committed to one line of development, of which one can already see alarming signs.
Not only are energy forecasts subject to uncertainty. The important point is to recognise that they can be influenced or managed to a significant extent. I do not believe in the sort of fatalism which says that an improved standard of living is inevitably linked to an ever-increasing consumption of energy. Indeed, I believe that if we look a little further ahead there is some evidence to show that a course of unchecked consumption could seriously threaten living standards through increased pollution, visual intrusion, and indeed, even threats to individual liberty.
So I am sure that one of the first objectives of any energy policy, either national or international, should he to find ways of reducing consumption per head of the population without impeding the steady progress towards improved living standards. That, at its simplest, might mean concentrating on insulating and draught-proofing houses and factories, and installing more efficient rather than simply bigger and bigger energy-consuming units.
It may seem a little pretentious to talk airily about energy policy in the light of the uncertainties which I have already talked about. Any useful energy policy must have built into it a high degree of flexibility and an ability to adapt to changing circumstances, ideas and knowledge. But I believe that we need a common framework of assumption and

1325
forecasts which can be extended to defining objectives for the years ahead. Then, against this background, we can build up detailed strategies for the various component parts of the overall plan.
I suppose in industrial terms one would call this an energy budget within which detailed plans can be worked out and then performance monitored against the plan. I have no doubt that if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were here, at this juncture he would be advocating an Energy Commission. Of course it has many attractions, particularly in view of the multi-disciplinary and multi-Ministry nature of energy decisions which affect, and are affected by, environmental considerations, transport problems as has already been said, and security problems, as well as all the extremely highly technical issues about which scientists very properly love to dispute.
I can see that there would be great advantages in trying to focus this information and make it available for public discussion so that the public and Parliament were aware of the considerations that need to be taken into account when a Minister reaches a decision. But this would be a complicated and time-consuming task, and it would be important to guard against the danger of setting up some enormous bureaucratic edifice which might be needed to support this advisory function. This leads me to wonder whether the Department could funnel technical information into such a body, or could produce it on request from such a body, or indeed could even commission work on their behalf.
Would it, for example, be feasible to contemplate a kind of continuous running Flowers Commission, which I think is what it would really boil down to; or would this duplicate, and possibly conflict with, the activities of the chief scientist at the Ministry of Energy who, incidentally, has made noble efforts to inform the public by issuing his various reports on the choice of scenarios? I should be interested to know from the Minister when he replies, what is the Government's view of the usefulness of the small scale Oil Council in Scotland, which I think was set up by my noble friend Lord Campbell, and how they think this has worked out in practice.
1326
It is right to give credit to the Minister for his real desire to have public discussion on energy matters, provided that this does not become a substitute for leadership, guidance and decision making. A recent example of this I heard about. About a year ago the Energy Technology Support Unit, "ETSU", hosted a heat pump symposium, yet the results of this symposium have not yet been published despite the fact that there existed highly important information which would have been invaluable to those working in this field. It is a curious fact that the Minister, who, shall we say, is not exactly noted as being a passive Minister, has in fact not taken a number of major decisions which have faced him during the two years he has been in his present post. There is the choice of the thermal reactor; there is the matter of the fast breeder; there is the matter of the reprocessing, and a number of other major decisions awaiting the Minister.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Is it Conservative policy that these decisions should be taken now, despite the fact that we do not need any further reactors at the moment and we do not need the reprocessing?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I would suggest that the answer to that would in fact be taking a decision. I should also like to suggest that in three months the American Administration has shown a willingness to face unpopular decisions which possibly we have been running away from over some considerable time. The medicine that the President has proposed may yet be declined by the patient, even though it would be to the long-term benefit of his health. It is of course true to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said, that in these terms the American patient is a great deal more sick than we are. He is much higher up the cliff of energy consumption than ever we are in this country. But it is also a fact that sooner or later, in energy terms, the industrialised world will have to face a major adjustment in its style of living, and I would suggest that it will be better made sooner and gradually rather than later and traumatically.
I used to twit the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, that the Government had not demonstrated a passionate commit-

1327
ment to energy saving, though they paid lip service to it. I often suspected that he personally agreed with me, so I am very glad to see that he is following me in this debate. But I still believe this to be the situation, although I think that the Government must be given credit for not running away from facing up to a high cost fuel environment. I still believe that a lot more could be done to encourage insulation and all other energy saving techniques by using tax credits and grants to pensioners, I have suggested this so often in debates in your Lordships' House. I would suggest that the quarter of the additional need, which the noble Lord suggested was possible here, is modest indeed.
This leads me to question the balance between the research funds allocated to nuclear research as compared with research into what are known as the alternative sources. I think that the figure is £180 million on nuclear against £1·8 million on the alternative sources; a disparity of 100 to one. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said that nuclear power had been disappointing. I think that this underlines the point. There are several skeins that run through this argument. The potential contribution of the alternative sources has, I think, consistently been underrated, and some of the problems and possibilities are not always appreciated by the high technology orientated scientists; and we shall shortly be seeing, I understand, an interesting report which puts forward this concept.
We are inclined to be mesmerised by what one might call the macro-technical approach to energy problems. In the conventional power stations, in seeking for a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. improvement in efficiency, we are going to ever larger and larger stations, such as the much discussed Drax B power station. I shall not go into any of the other considerations, but this happens to be a name that is in our minds. These, like nuclear power stations, have to be sited, for technical and amenity reasons, well away from the area where their products are to be consumed.
This makes it difficult to use the two-thirds of the thermal content of the fuel which is rejected as waste heat. Smaller stations could be sited nearer to the point
1328
of consumption and with relatively easy use of waste heat, which could be upgraded by heat pumps if need be. The efficiencies could he doubled, at least at the peak periods of consumption in the wintertime. Furthermore, a nuclear economy is likely to be an electrical economy and the imagination boggles at the kind of intrusion into the countryside which a grid four or five times the size of the present grid would inevitably create, and by comparison I suggest that a few windmills, which are often said to be visually intrusive, on hilltops would be nothing compared with the sort of distribution grid we might need for such an electrical economy.
But there is a slightly more philosophical point, which is the scale. In this country we excel in what I might call ingenuity at the local level—and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, went back 300 years to talk about the encouragement of ingenuity. I have many times proclaimed my belief in small business, which I think has been neglected and repressed by Governments, if I may say so, perhaps particularly by Socialist Governments; but I would not by any means absolve Conservative Governments, though I believe the light is beginning to dawn at least in my Party and possibly the same is happening in the Party opposite.
What I am suggesting is that the technology of energy saving and of power producing in smaller units near to the point of consumption fits in well with the philosophy of the small business, and in the process I believe we should have a chance to establish a useful export industry to the underdeveloped countries, which would be much more valuable in helping them with the systematic exploitation of the possibilities of removable sources like the sun, wind, tides, and tackling the problem of storing energy which is associated with them.
I must here put in a plea for a device which I have twice referred to before, the heat pump. This is not an energy source in itself but it has great possibility in making use of the alternative energy sources and a good installation can achieve the apparent miracle of producing three to five kilowatts of heat for every kilowatt of electrical input. In the past the electrical undertakings were against this because they wanted to sell the electricity,

1329
but what they failed to see was that by making electricity competitive with other forms of heating like coal, oil and gas, potentially the use of electricity could be greatly increased. And in spite of what I said earlier about the electrical economy, there have to be certain advantages in the use of electricity, which is pollution-free and, once the grid is there, it is easy to transport.
It is because I believe there is great potential in the aggregate contribution of small users that I am in no haste to see fast breeder reaction proceeded with with indecent haste. As has been said, we are fortunately placed in that we have before us the prospects of supplies of oil and coal if we proceed steadily to exploit them. However, the extraction of coal is neither cheap nor agreeable for those who do it and at least one noble Lord thinks that the social and environmental consequences are unacceptable. I do not happen to agree with him.
As regards oil, we have recently had an example of the hazards of working on the frontiers of this technology, and in this connection I have a specific question for the noble Lord, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is sitting beside him. I hope he will be able to set at rest the misgivings that have been created by some, what I think were probably casual, remarks by the Minister, and the noble Lord, understandably, was unable to commit himself in our debate on the Ekofisk blow-out last week.
The Minister's comment that his Department would have to look into the implications of cleaning up costs being allowable against profits before corporation tax have been interpreted in some quarters as implying that such costs might be disallowed for tax purposes. On the other hand, we have all accepted the philosophy that the polluter pays, and it may even be that more stringent precautions are required. I should have thought it was obvious that any suggestion of disallowing expenses would have precisely the opposite effect from that which we wish to convey, and furthermore the implications in terms of potential intrusion by Government and Revenue into commercial decisions that would follow from any decision of that kind would really be beyond all possibility; I hope the noble Lord will be able to
1330
reassure us. I said I did not think we should rush into the development of the fast breeder. I understand our wish to keep a toehold in the high technology, but I suggest that it should be only in partnership with our international friends, and then only on a basis which has a chance of our earning a good commercial return.
I started by questioning the fatalistic assumption that rising standards of living inevitably compel us to plan for a continuous exponential growth in energy demand. I have said that resolute and far-sighted decisions could have a significant influence in controlling such growth and I have mentioned one or two examples of the ways in which I believe this could be tackled, and I am sure noble Lords will have other ideas. It seems to me that our energy prospects are the one bright spot in an otherwise rather gloomy prospect facing this country. I think we can afford to be magnanimous with our friends in the energy field and I seriously hope that we will use the 20 or 30 years of breathing space which nature has vouchsafed to us to give full rein to the national ingenuity which I think will benefit not only us but all mankind in general.
4.48 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I should like to apologise in advance to my noble friend the Leader of the House and to your Lordships for the fact that a speaking engagement made two months ago will prevent me from being present at the end of the debate. I shall read my noble friend's summing-up and other noble Lords' contributions in the Official Report with great interest. My Lords, at a time of change and rapid progress on our domestic energy scene—when it has become possible that we may be self-sufficient in oil in 1979, ahead of schedule, and last year the economic benefits from oil and gas were worth about £3 billion to our balance of payments—it may be hard to accept that one thing has not changed and that no one should be deluded into thinking that we can afford to ease up on the need to conserve energy. That is what I propose to talk about this afternoon, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, anticipated.
The facts are these. The slight recovery from the recession last year led to a bigger

1331
jump in energy consumption in Europe than elsewhere; a rise in energy demand bigger than the rise in gross domestic product. President Carter has stated that in the United States demand for oil is rising to the point where, within five years, it will begin to outstrip supply. Even Sheikh Yamani has bluntly warned that if current consumption trends are not checked, Saudi Arabia and other producers will not meet all American demands beyond 1982; and as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones emphasised, Britain has only a limited time of energy self-sufficiency before we shall again need to import oil. It has been estimated that by the year 2000 natural gas production in the major consuming countries will probably decline to about two-thirds of the 1972 level.
What are we to do? One solution proposed is to turn to alternative sources of energy such as the sun, the tides, the wind. It is important that we should press ahead with research in this field, but it is unattractive economically and, in global terms, it is unlikely to have a significant effect this century.
One fuel we have in abundance in Britain, although it too will eventually run out, is coal. Economically recoverable reserves have recently been put at the equivalent of 3,000 billion barrels of oil, and potential reserves at possibly four times this figure. The sums have changed and coal now figures much more significantly in the equation. It is clear that we must develop and make greater use of it. Previous speakers, including my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have emphasised this and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield will have something to say on this subject from his great experience of the industry. The inescapable conclusion, however, is that to meet our future demands nuclear energy is needed in a big way.
But, whatever we do so far as coal and nuclear energy are concerned, we are coming to the point where decisions have to be made quickly because of the long lead times and we are heading for the energy gap possibly much more rapidly than is generally assumed. Nations are not only running out of oil and gas but,
1332
whatever happens, everyone agrees that they are also running out of time in which to cater for future energy needs.
We can gain time only by turning to the alternative of conserving the fuels that we have. I have become distressingly aware, in travelling about this country, that we do not seem to be getting this message across. One of the reasons, of course, is that, after an excellent start in 1975, we let the drive go out of our energy conservation programme. At the beginning of 1976, I tried to obtain an estimate of the amount that had been saved by the campaign on which, by then, £5·l million had been spent, and managed to winkle out a tentative figure of £150 million. I thought that 3,000 per cent. was a fair return on the investment and a help to our balance of payments, but now I see that a Department of Energy report indicates that we may have saved far more in 1975, perhaps even as much as £600 million. Not all of this was the result of the "Save It" campaign; there were other factors such as price increases, but the point is that then there was a massive drive to conserve energy. It was not kept up during 1976 and only this month has there been a positive commitment by the Government to the continuation and development of the "Save It" campaign over the next three years. £1·93 million has been allocated for the current financial year, which is an indication that the Treasury, who originally cut off the appropriation, have been made to see the sense of expenditure that leads to great savings and is important evidence of the higher priority in energy policy given to conservation since the London Summit agreement.
It is more than a pity that we lost the world lead we had in energy conservation, but we now have the chance to take it seriously and be seen to take it seriously again. Incidentally, it is disappointing to see that, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, notwithstanding, our Liberal comrades, as usual through inadvertence, seem to have come out against energy conservation. By opposing the projected increase in the tax on petrol they may have helped their rural voters, but they have not helped the cause of energy conservation.
In my view, we must as a matter of urgency create a wider understanding of the role energy conservation has to play

1333
in our overall energy and economic policy. It is not an optional extra against the energy background I have described. It is a vital necessity now—and for a long time to come. The efficient use of energy has to be built into our way of life, and not least our industrial life. Not only must we not treat conservation as an optional extra, but we must recognise that it is an integral part of the larger problems that we face. We can not divorce it from the many other decisions to which it is linked.
President Carter has taken a courageous and imaginative step in going for a tough energy plan. He is in for a bitter fight from less far-sighted and more selfish interests, as Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has said and, politically, energy conservation is not a very sexy subject. But he has accepted the problem and given it a complete rethink. He has related the energy problem to the overall national scene, calling for increased taxes on petrol linked to increased national consumption, and on thirsty, inefficient cars—the so-called "gas guzzlers"; on domestically produced oil and natural gas, to encourage coal burning; for tax credits to house-owners, to encourage insulation; and tax breaks for utilities switching from oil to coal.
I believe that we, too, have to rethink our whole approach to the subject. In the crazy Whitehall system we depend upon, all decisions with an energy conservation content are split between various sponsoring Departments, which may not themselves be energy-conscious. This makes it difficult to achieve a co-ordinated, progressive policy designed to curb energy demand effectively. So, when I was a Minister with responsibility for energy conservation, I set out to get closer liaison between the various Departments of State and to encourage each Department to have one Minister with specific responsibility for ensuring that energy conservation policies were applied within the field covered by that Department.
A vitally important part of conservation is the insulation of buildings to adequate standards, particularly new buildings, and it is the Department of the Environment that sets the standards, not the Department of Energy. And if the building is an industrial building, for which higher standards are also badly needed, then this has implications for the Department of
1334
Industry. Transport and the efficient use of fuel is another instance of split decision-making. So it is essential that there should be the closest inter-departmental co-operation and that energy conservation be seen, not as a sort of hobby-horse of the Department of Energy but as a vital part of our national economic planning.
In 1975 and the beginning of 1976, we were taking the message out to industry and getting an encouraging response from many companies. The Department did not just state the national need for conservation but made some effort to put over the fact that cutting out waste—and there has always been massive waste of energy throughout industry—meant a more efficient company and better profits. But it is clear that in the interim many companies, particularly small and medium sized companies, have simply done nothing about energy conservation. A greater effort is required to make sure that they do take it seriously, and more should be done to persuade them to introduce good practice in the use of energy.
It has been suggested that the Government should offer extra financial inducements, but I do not see why they should do so to encourage companies simply to do themselves a good turn. Surely, industry can be expected to see to its own self-interest. As it is, the Finance Act of 1975 offers a first year tax allowance on expenditure on insulating certain types of existing industrial buildings, and it is depressing to find that the vast majority of companies are simply not bothering to take advantage of a scheme which would benefit them not only in terms of the tax allowance itself but by cutting their fuel bills.
One of the suggestions that was being considered was, I remember, one to ensure that companies applying for selective assistance would first have to show that they were taking steps to devise and implement an energy conservation programme, including an energy audit as part of the firm's accounts. I am sure other ways can be found to put pressure on lazy companies to go in for what is no more than good business practice in their own interest. Many of the schemes that will yield savings in energy are simply matters of good housekeeping and vigilance which cost little, or have a fast pay-back

1335
in terms of money saved. There is very little other investment that offers such returns.
There are many ways of conserving energy and of carrying conservation into all levels of our national life. Given the will within the Department of Energy, support from the highest levels of Government, co-operation from other Departments of State, and the invaluable advice provided by bodies such as the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, I know that the Department of Energy can produce the ideas and extend energy conservation as an integral part of overall economic policy.
Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I have no intention of trying to cover all the possible areas that should be investigated. However, there are several proposals, some of which were discussed when I was in the Department, that I should like to refer to before I sit down. I do not know how far we can go in following President Carter's lead in proposing a tax credit for house-owners who insulate their homes; some other countries give these concessions, and we should certainly look carefully into the scheme, its costs, and the savings that might accrue. But it does seem an anomaly, and one which scarcely encourages people to believe that the Government are taking energy saving seriously, that VAT is still charged on all insulating materials. Surely this is absurd, and an example of the kind of inflexibility that we need like a hole in the head, for it will defeat our purpose.
Another important aspect of conservation lies in the adequate training of energy managers—those people responsible for implementing a company's energy policy—and I have met many who have very effectively improved their companies' profits through energy saving. Here, I feel, there is something positive and immediate that can be done. I have put the suggestion forward before now. There is in Solihull an excellent, but possibly under-utilised trainingestablishment known as the British Gas School of Fuel Management—and all credit to British Gas for taking conservation so seriously. I have visited the school several times, and it has always struck me that wider use could be made of this facility. Would it not be possible, under Government auspices,
1336
to expand and develop it or, if that is not possible, to set up somewhere else a school of fuel management that could teach efficient management of all fuels—gas, electricity, oil, solid fuel and so on? The school could enjoy much better success and contribute more if it was better known and covered a bigger field, and it would be one of the most cost-effective schemes that the Government could undertake.
We should also be doing more to help domestic consumers, for it is clear—not least from the contribution the Consumers' Association made to the Energy Conference last June—that the advice and help people receive is too often general and unrelated to their own personal situation and need. At the conference they called for more information for the individual through local advice centres—citizen advice bureaux, consumer advice centres, and so on. A special service could be established to provide this help and advice, quickly and easily, to meet individual need, domestically and, I suggest, in industry, too. I have already referred to building standards so far as insulation is concerned, and it is clear that a great deal has to be done here. We should also look more closely at the kind of homes that are planned for the future. Houses should not be built without flues, for example, so that their occupants become trapped into using one fuel only—in most cases today electricity—with no possibility of changing from one fuel to another.
At the international level there should be the closest co-operation, not simply at a formal level through international agencies and at conferences, but informally, to exchange ideas and practical experience, particularly with other members of the EEC and the United States. There is so much that can be done, once we accept energy conservation as an essential constituent of our social and economic policy, as we must. For we have no alternative in the short run, or even in the long run until we have developed sources of energy which are as near infinite as we can imagine.
We are all surely convinced of the need to save energy. This country has pledged itself, together with six other nations, to meet the need for energy conservation. What must happen now is for Government to translate the welter of recommendations

1337
into a practical working programme, which is not simply confined to the Department of Energy, and which recognises the need from now on to build energy saving into all levels of our social and economic planning.
5.6 p.m.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to whom we are indebted for this debate, is very persuasive and he persuaded me (or perhaps I should say nearly twisted my arm off) to take part in it. But I was as impressed by his excellent speech as I was by his arm-twisting. He asked me to deal with some economic aspects of the energy crisis, and my first thought was to look at the recent literature. I will make a remark or two on the economic side, though they will not make headlines. But I think that I may do some of your Lordships a greater service if I review for a few minutes some of the documents—and I am sure that the list is not complete—which have appeared in the past few months alone and which really are required reading for anyone who wants to make a speech on the subject. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do more than skim these documents and I wish I had had more time to digest them thoroughly.
There is the World Energy Outlook, published by the OECD in Paris early this year—a closely-packed 100 pages. There is the very interesting Nuclear Power Study, sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and published in March. This was closely followed by the paper by the Combined Intelligence Agency, published in April, on the International Energy Situation—Outlook to 1985. This was followed in turn almost immediately by President Carter's energy programme, briefly summarised for the Press in 28 closely-typed foolscap pages. Finally, last week the most recent authoritative and complete study of them all was published in the report of the Workshop in Alternative Energy Strategies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred. This was sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and directed by that most eminent of American scientists and scientific administrators, Dr. Caroll Wilson. Compared with the studies in depth of the Workshop or the OECD, the EEC papers, introduced by the noble
1338
Earl, Lord Lauderdale, are more limited—the noble Earl was less than kind, no doubt with reason, to the Commission's work and statistics—though they antedate the more deeply researched reports which I have mentioned.
But, my Lords, the Commission in Brussels does not in substance come to any different conclusion to that of the other studies. These nearly all take slightly different assumptions, with varying and often multiple scenarios—I am glad that the noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones, and Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, have accepted the use of this slogan word. They take rather different approaches, and cover rather different timescales. Yet all the literature comes to the same general conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, might be right in suggesting that there is rather too much literature, and also that all these documents may be quite wrong; but Governments can hardly assume that such a wide consensus is mistaken, nor can they ignore it.
The general conclusions are that even on the most pessimistic forecasts of economic growth, including the low rates mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, demand for energy will continue to rise. None of the scenarios shows a decline in energy use, or even a severe flattening of the rise in demand. All of them show that there is enough energy in the world to meet all the scenarios—at a cost. To quote the MIT report:
"The long-range energy problem is one of higher costs rather than one of absolute limitations on energy availability".
But, the report goes on:
"Rapidly rising energy prices could increase inflation, exacerbate balance-of-payments problems, produce low or negative economic growth rates, and increase unemployment".
Or take OECD:
"Failure to act courts the danger of considerable economic dislocation, slower growth, and higher unemployment".
Or MIT again:
"Failure to act"—
identical words—
"could lead to substantially higher energy prices with depressant effects on the economics of the world and the consequent frustration of the aspirations of the less well-developed countries. The major political and social difficulties that

1339
might arise would cause energy to become a focus for confrontation and conflict. Time has become the most precious of our resources".
For the discussion of action there are almost as many forums as there are documents: yesterday, the IMF meeting in Tokyo; today, an OECD meeting in Paris; there is the International Energy Agency; the rather mysterious energy commission of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, and so on, almost endlessly. But what action is emerging is less than clear, at least to me. Indeed, while the clock ticks it is difficult, as this debate may well show, to find much that is new to say about the problem until something is actually done about it.
The first task, as all the authorities agree, is to reduce dependence on oil. What is being done about that? Take the EEC. In December 1975 the Commission proposed a balanced package of measures to help towards such a reduction. However, the report before the House tells us that the Member States have declined to accept the general outlines of the package as a basis for later decisions on the individual measures contained in it. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there has been any improvement in this gloomy state of affairs in the last few months. I think the energy Ministers have met at least once since it was made. Did they make progress; and what are the prospects for June 14?
The United States has, in the few months since Mr. Carter took over the White House, produced with characteristic vitality a comprehensive energy plan which is now before Congress. It may not be ideal. On certain aspects of the nuclear proposals it is open to serious objection, particularly from the United Kingdom, France and Germany; it may not all get through. But it is a carefully worked out comprehensive policy and, if I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, said about it, given American determination, I expect most of the recommendations, if not all of them, will probably, in time, be adopted. We have not succeeded in doing this sort of thing in the EEC, or, so far as I know, in this country. The Secretary of State for Energy often refers to his open system of formulating policy, but, accepting the complications of the task before him,
1340
so far it seems to be no more than a recipe for putting off decisions.
The documents from which I have quoted are clear and unanimous about energy sources alternative to oil. Conservation is very important. The noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Strathcona, referred to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has given us the fruits of his great experience on the subject. But the authorities to which I have referred—may he they are all wrong—do not think that, at its most successful, it will make more than a small percentage contribution to the problem. Renewable sources of energy—solar, tidal and geothermal, on which I know some research is going on here, in the United States and no doubt in other countries—cannot make a significant impact before the turn of the century. Fusion may come in, as noble Lords have said, if at all, even later.
The only effective alternative is therefore to press on with the development of coal and nuclear energy; and, as noble Lords have said, the long lead times make early decisions imperative. Of course I do not underrate the difficulties. The public reaction to the development of either of these resources is either hostile or indifferent, not to say complacent. As an example of complacency, take the tax on petrol, to which reference has already been made. As a selfish consumer, I was, of course, delighted to see it withdrawn. As a contributor to an energy debate, I consider that it was a thoroughly justifiable and indeed a necessary measure. What the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said was very relevant to this, but he seems to have drawn a different conclusion.
This complacency may be put down to two things. First, the relative ease with which the international financial system has coped with the monetary and financial consequences of the upsurge in oil prices. But this may not go so well as prices rise further, as they undoubtedly will. Secondly, the complacency may be due to the thought that, as a beneficiary of North Sea oil, "I'm all right, Jack". But—and I do not underrate these benefits—this is an illusion. A world shortage of energy leading to rapidly escalating prices will adversely affect us in the United Kingdom in all kinds of ways of which, at the moment, we have little conception. A warning to this effect,

1341
in more muted terms, is contained in the Select Committee's report.
At the moment, the public attack is concentrated on nuclear power at every level, from the high emotionalism of the Friends of the Earth to scare journalism. But a switch to the development of coal would be met with equally vociferous opposition, as it has been in the United States. Indeed, I predict that no substantial progress will be made here or elsewhere until some Government have the courage to stand up to the more extreme environmental lobbies, whose political pull seems out of all proportion to their numbers, and take firm decisions to develop both nuclear and coal resources. After all, we are rich in both. We have huge reserves of uranium in depleted form which can be reprocessed; and noble Lords have already heard enough about the availability of coal. A sober and balanced evaluation of the respective merits of nuclear and coal power is contained in the MIT report which, incidentally, concludes that, so far as safety and health hazard is concerned, nuclear power has the advantage over coal. But how to get this conclusion across? Let me give a small example of the double standards from which nuclear power is suffering.
Last week a vehicle transporting uranium hexafluoride overturned on the Winchester by-pass. The container was properly designed, and there was no radioactive health hazard or danger to anyone; but the incident made the front pages and had, for some reason, to be specially reported to the Secretary of State. Four years ago a tanker carrying industrial chemicals overturned on the same road, a few miles further North, and killed the fish in the River Loddon all the way down to the Thames. The incident made the local papers but, as far as I know, was reported to nobody. There is an emotional content in all this which seems to make rational action very difficult.
My Lords, the MIT report sensibly identifies three stages of nuclear choice: one, to proceed with existing types of thermal and convertor reactors; two, to go on to Reprocessing and Plutonium Recycle; and, three, the fast breeder. It makes a further significant comment that the viable nuclear industry which would be needed to supply and fuel
1342
future nuclear power plants may not survive widespread moratoria or long delays in nuclear power construction. But I do not intend to develop the nuclear power debate further today. I will only say that even Mr. Carter is content to press on with stage one; that is, the development of existing types of reactor.
I have only one question on the matter, or rather a question in duplicate, to put to the Minister now. Is it the case that the first generation Magnox reactors of this country are operating ever more efficiently? Is it the case that the advanced gas cooled reactors now finally commissioned are proving very economical and reliable in operation? If the answers are, "Yes", should not the fullest publicity be given to these facts? My Lords, this is a vast subject. I have asked the Minister a couple of questions and perhaps directed some noble Lords' attention to essential documents. It is not much; but there is no time for more.
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for having allowed me to speak in his place in this debate because, as I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I have very good reason for having to leave; in that I am meeting his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy tomorrow at one of the various meetings mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, a meeting of the International Energy Agency, which indeed will go on for two days. I hope that he will forgive me, therefore, if I leave before the end.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who as usual has made a most important contribution to this debate, a philosophical one as well as one which shows great knowledge of the atomic energy industry. We must thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for having opened this debate. I shall speak now largely for the European Parliament and its energy committee, but also, to some extent, expressing some views of the European Commission and the Commissioner himself Mr. Guido Brunner with whom I am in constant, close touch. I should not like to say that all the remarks emanate from those particular sources but some certainly do;

1343
and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I have a few things to say this afternoon.
These complex problems of energy supplies continue to torment us. They torment us by our having to read so many of the documents that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned. The leaders of the great industrial nations recently met in London against the knowledge that 15 millions are unemployed in these and allied nations and that the leaders of the developing nations are struggling to bring hundreds of millions to a better life.
Her Majesty's Government require an energy policy and a Secretary of State prepared to take those bold decisions which are necessary to the lifeblood of the material existence of our peoples in Britain and in Europe. There is no evidence yet that the largest single decision of the present Administration, in establishing the British National Oil Corporation, has resulted in a greater rate of discovery of oil and gas than has historically occurred. The fundamental problem, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, indicated at the outset, is that the increase in demand for oil and gas, at least in the non-Communist world, is greater than the rate of discovery of new reserves.
It is essential that the United Kingdom should aim not only at self-sufficiency in energy generation as soon as possible but that it should aim to secure self-sufficiency for the long-term; and, in the world context, this country must play its part not only with the European Communities, as has been indicated, but also with other industrial nations and developing countries in order to provide the means of energy generation and conservation which will enable material existence to be sustained.
Time erodes the memory. It erodes the memory of the effect on oil supplies of a succession of Middle East wars. Each one was worse in its effect than the preceding one. The recent fire in the Abuquaiq oilfield in Saudi Arabia resulted in large losses on the Japanese stock exchange. The Ekofisk Bravo accident demonstrated the ease with which North Sea oil installations might be rendered useless by an accident—or by an enemy. The long supply lines for European oil continue to pass through geopolitically
1344
sensitive nations and waters. Changes of political authority in the supplying States can occur suddenly. In Iraq, the Government of Nuri es Said was supplanted overnight by a revolutionary military command. In Libya, King Idris's Government was replaced by a President Gaddafi's military command council. Overnight, assumptions based on generations of co-operation and friendship become void. These memories are apposite. For, Saudi Arabia is the linchpin of the economic survival of not a few nations until such time as they individually acquire a greater indigenous energy generation. President Carter has drawn attention to the calamitous dependence of the United States for 50 per cent. of its oil from outside sources. The OECD report, which has already been mentioned, and more recently the report of the Workshop on Alternative Strategies, highlighted the trend, namely, that by 1985 the industrialised world will be largely dependent on one nation—Saudi Arabia—for an increase in that nation's productive capacity to meet the incremental demands of the oil importing states. But Saudi Arabia has served notice that unless its customers are seen to be taking positive measures to increase energy generation and to conserve energy, then its customers may not count on its good will to supply. The oil will remain in the ground.
I believe that we are most fortunate to enjoy the indulgence of Saudi Ministers. It would be an abuse of friendship not to heed the warnings, and it would be foolhardy not to take an appropriate course of action mindful of contemporary Arab history. According to the OECD, the oil importing countries will require 35 million barrels per day in 1985 compared with 28 barrels a day in 1974—a statistic that takes account of both North Sea oil and Alaskan oil. Let us recall that the OECD assumes slower than historic levels for the economic growth of the industrialised nations. In the case of the United Kingdom a growth rate of 2·5 to 3 per cent. between now and 1985, assumed in the OECD Report. That is not the desirable growth that will reduce high unemployment and bring inflation under control. Even the Federal Republic of Germany must cope with 1 million unemployed, with an expected growth of a little under 5 per cent. in the current year. Inaction by the present Government,

1345
or any other Governments with whom we are allied in the area of energy policy is a tacit acceptance that high unemployment and high inflation are here to stay. I deeply regret to have to come to this as one of my conclusions.
We are debating the energy objectives of the Community as well as the nature of United Kingdom energy policy. In December 1974 the Council of Ministers, in which this Government was a participant, agreed that the Community's energy dependence on external sources should be reduced from 63 per cent. in 1973 to 50 per cent. in 1985. This objective implied the fulfilment of 35 per cent. of global energy needs by electricity in 1985 and that 40 per cent. of electrical power would be generated by nuclear plant. The target for installed nuclear power was 160 geigerwatts. It is in the Benelux countries and France where national contributions to this target are more likely to be achieved, the shortfalls occurring in the United Kingdom, Italy and, to a certain extent, in the Federal Republic of Germany.
It should be noted that President Carter's energy programme calls for an additional 600 nuclear power stations by the year 2000 compared with the 227 plants, representing 224 geigerwatts, currently in operation or under construction. This might be compared with the 20 plants in the United Kingdom which represent 11·9 geigerwatts out of a total of 71·2 geigerwatts in the European Community as a whole. Is the United Kingdom, is Europe, less ambitious and less determined than the United States of America to safeguard the material existence of its people? A decade from now the British people will hold today's Ministers for Energy responsible for the energy that is not available to meet their demand. One cold winter in 1988 and then what?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl is talking about electrical energy by 1985. He must surely be aware that even on the CEBG's own projections we do not need any new installed capacity over and above that which has already been ordered by 1985.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, this was a point which the noble Lord made earlier. I am talking about the future, further ahead. We have to
1346
look ahead and meet possible contingencies. If the present British Government can be indicted—that is too strong a word, perhaps—for the lack of a British energy policy within the European Community, we must admit that most Member States have been dilatory. Investment programmes are less than target on account of the enduring recession, and the reduced energy consumption which has resulted. The present Administration and future Governments in this country ignore at the economic peril of their energy-consuming industries the nuclear electricity targets of France and Benelux.
The European Community has taken important initiatives to implement the Community's energy objectives. It is the singular failure of the British Presidency of the Council—again, I am sorry to say this—that a dynamic programme to achieve these objectives has not yet been put in hand. Cumulatively the Commission's proposals will do a little to pave the way towards greater Community energy production. More is the pity that successive Commissioners have had to struggle with or indeed fight, the Council of Ministers to achieve their approval of these measures, even though they enjoyed support in the European Parliament and are broadly supported, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, by many authorities in the world.
It is a tribute to Commissioner Brunner that at long last the go-ahead has been given to Euratom loans for the construction of nuclear power plant amounting to 500 million units of account, and we hope that the Council will agree at its next meeting on 14th June to the financial aid to promote the use of coal amounting to 500 million units of account over 15 years—a matter on which, as has been pointed out, I was rapporteur. I hope, too, that substantial financial aid to support cyclical stocks of coal will also be agreed as well as direct and indirect research to harness novel sources of energy and improve the safety of nuclear plant. The Commission and the European Parliament's Committee for Energy and Research are also studying measures to rectify the overcapacity—and I agree it is overcapacity—in the Community's refinery industry.
The inability of the British Presidency to obtain agreement on the siting of the joint European Torus—and I agree it is

1347
not solely the President, but the Council itself—JET machine has been deplored unanimously in the European Parliament and your Lordships' House. There has been unanimous agreement that the project should have been given the go-ahead by now. May we expect the present Council to achieve a satisfactory decision on JET by the next meeting? I hope the noble Lord can give us some indication on this. May we hope that the Secretary of State for Energy—and we shall certainly be questioning him about this in Paris tomorrow—will encourage British Energy undertakings to take advantage of these Community incentives?
The Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend, which examined the Community's energy objectives for 1985 cast doubt on the statistical bases of the Commission's recommendations. But these are only the sum of Member States' consumption and forecasts. Would it not be more appropriate for the British Presidency and the Commission to lay down a standard for the collection of energy data so that doubts, real or imaginary, may be removed with the application of the right methodology?
I am glad that generous support has been given to research in harnessing the novel sources of energy. But, however warm our approval may be, I must note the succession of reports from around the world which state that commercial quantities of energy from these sources are not achievable in the coming decade. I will not go further into that point, since it has been well dealt with already in the debate. Also, conservation is a long-term programme but every fiscal encouragement must be given now, as witness President Carter's proposals, and also the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, earlier today.
As I stated quite recently in the European Parliament, the United Kingdom and Germany are endowed with substantial reserves of coal. The decision to install additional generating capacity at Drax is to be welcomed and, if it leads to excess generating capacity, then why not export more electricity, using the Channel cable—or perhaps even putting down another cable? Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister might care to comment on that
1348
when winding up. It has not yet been mentioned.
A policy to order additional nuclear generating capacity is, of course, frustrated by the argument over which reactor. There are three: the steamer, the gas-cooled and the light water. Those, like Sir Brian Flowers, who are agnostic about the safety of nuclear plant, must be given the assurance that all measures will be taken within human technical competence to achieve operating safety and safe waste disposal. The House must take good heart from the fact that there has not been a single loss of life from radiation at any nuclear plant operating in the non-Communist world. As to those environmentalists who advocate delay or even cessation of nuclear construction, let them be reminded that engineering of a product is a series of step-wise improvements, which are obtained with experience of succeeding models. If you suspend construction, you forbid the necessary experience. Here is another thought, my Lords: the more uranium that is not used for peaceful purposes will always be there for warlike purposes, and environmentalists cannot now remove the human knowledge which enables nuclear weapons to be manufactured. I believe that environmentalists may actually increase the risk of nuclear conflict—a paradoxical goal for those who are certainly motivated by the very best intentions.
I have spoken quite long enough but there is, of course, a good deal to be said on this matter. I think it is an extraordinary fact that if the public are prepared to accept the risk of flying in aircraft the day after 562 people died in Tenerife, they must with the same conviction accept the increasing and continued generation of electricity from nuclear plant. And, of course, it is equally important that full public support should be given to the proving of fast breeder reactor systems. The United Kingdom must set itself a target of something like 40 per cent. electricity generated by nuclear plant. That will imply an increase in the number of sites, each having possibly four plants. The effort which is required is large, but I believe it can be done and it is necessary.
The disposal of nuclear waste, which has been mentioned, is an acute problem, particularly with the increasing number of conventional reactors. Rarely can a technical, commercial problem have

1349
offered such a rich prize. If the ensuing business is not accepted by British Nuclear Fuels, then the French (whose plant I have visited), the Germans and the Belgians will be poised—indeed, are poised—to take advantage of this new market. Noble Lords should also note that the Federal German Government have now given high priority to the KEWA project, using the gas centrifuge process, to fulfil the triple task of reprocessing, plutonium fuel manufacture and final disposal of radioactive waste. It is essential that reprocessing capacity in the European Community should equal the need, which is estimated at some 7,500 tonnes per year by 1986. I hope that British Nuclear Fuels will expand to meet a fair share of this and of world markets.
There must be further investment in expanding processing facilities and we must remember that in France nuclear plant—and this is a matter of investment—is only 25 per cent. self-financing and in West Germany the figure is 40 per cent. In other words—and I would stress this point to the noble Lord the Leader of the House—a political rather than a commercial investment will have to be made on behalf of the British people. Let us take advantage of the Community's Euratom loans, and let us play our part in the Council of Ministers as fully as possible. The present Secretary of State, as chairman of the Council, is a man of tremendous ability and intelligence and I believe that even in the last weeks of his presidency he may be able to achieve something.
I should like to ask only two very brief questions. Have the Government placed sufficient orders for the supply of uranium ore to meet the nation's needs for the next decade? As I have to leave, perhaps the Minister would prefer to give me a written reply about that. Secondly, has the British presidency of the Council considered initiating "two-way street" agreements between the Member States of the Community and the United States and Japan on fast breeder and fusion techniques, on the harnessing of novel sources of energy, and on the employment of new energy conservation methods? Such "two-way street" agreements could be of great use.
Our Governments—not only our own Government but the other Governments—
1350
must now take steps to relieve the citizen and the managers of industry of their anxiety over tomorrow's energy supplies, and I ask the House to note particularly the conclusion of the Select Committee's Report, that it would be unwise to assume that coming self-sufficiency will render the United Kingdom immune to shortages elsewhere. I thank the two noble Lords for having brought these problems before us.
5.49 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to join noble Lords in their expressions of appreciation to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, who has initiated this debate. It is an important topic, as all the speakers up to now have shown, and it has international complications. Even President Carter very recently gave to the world his ideas of what the energy problem was and what it was likely to be in the immediate and in the long-term future. I think we owe a debt to my noble friend for initiating this debate and for deciding on such an important topic. There are three matters to which I should like to direct my observations. The first is, in this energy field, what was; secondly, the new and changed situation; and thirdly, the attitude and the proposals of the Trades Union Congress over this very important matter.
What I have to say about what was—and maybe this will be expected of me—is in the form of a tribute to the many generations of coal miners, going back to the first Industrial Revolution, who, throughout that long period of time, have supplied the life-blood to the arteries of the economy of the nation. For generations, until, possibly, not more than 20 years ago, the source of energy was very much restricted. In fact, in the main, coal was the only fuel. For that long period of time, the whole economy was dependent upon an abundant supply and, as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones indicated, the coal miners of this country, gave it, too. More often than not, the supply of this precious mineral exceeded the demand. For domestic heating, factories, steelworks, manufacturing processes, electricity and even gas, at that time, coal was the fuel upon which this country and other countries were dependent. History books will tell us that this was universally recognised.

1351
With your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to mention two matters. The first is a personal memory, while the second is a recorded fact which is now part of our history. While preparing this oration, I was reminded of what happened to me almost 70 years ago as a pony driver working underground in one of the pits in Nottinghamshire. At that time, some words—I do not know whether they were a poem, a rhyme or doggerel—were regarded by somebody as important, and they were set to music. There were 12 or 20 of us, and we used to lead our ponies in-by to the place where we had to limber them up to transport this precious mineral from the working place to the haulage head. These were the words:
"Coal, precious coal
What would the world be without it?
What would become of our ships on the seas,
Our railways, our workshops,
And big factories?"
So you see, my Lords, that this idea of the preponderance of coal in meeting our energy requirements at that time had even percolated into the minds of us young boys, and we used to sing that song.
The other matter is a more national one, but each in its different way indicates and recognises the truth of what I have said about coal being, for many generations, a fuel for meeting the energy requirements. In 1913, the total output from the deep mines of Britain was 287 million tons. That figure has never since been equalled. Perhaps more importantly, 95 million tons of that output was exported to other countries. The manpower at that time was more than 1 million. There was no sophisticated machinery. The tools of the trade were a mere pick and shovel, and the brawn and brain of the men employed. In the sphere of providing fuel to meet energy requirement, who would dispute that coal was king? Fortunately, in these islands there was plenty of it, and all the evidence that one can accumulate from those who go into the statistics shows that we still have plenty of it. In fact, as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones said, we have 300 years' supply.
My only reason for mentioning those two matters is to focus attention on the change that has taken place, in the past few years, in the sphere of fuel for our energy requirements, and every speech in your Lordships' House today has indicated
1352
what a substantial change it is. At present, there is coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and water power, and the comforting and cheerful fact about them is that all those fuels are now indigenous, whereas, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, the only indigenous fuel that we had many years ago was coal itself. I should here like to pay tribute to the scientists in the laboratories, the geologists and the engineers who are co-operating together in different spheres. As a consequence of their collective efforts, the scene has been transformed in the sphere of fuel to meet our energy requirements, which is so important.
What of the future? What might be revealed in the form of solar and tidal power? I do not know the answer. Who else really knows? I know least of all, because I know so little about science that it would be wrong of me even to speculate. However, there is some evidence that, at some time, the sun and the sea may make a contribution to meet the energy requirements of mankind. I trust that this brief reminder of what was until recently has been of interest to your Lordships. I am absolutely certain of this. Reflections on the past, and on the sometimes painful way in which man has discovered nature's storehouse of treasure and used it for improvements in his standard of living, provide a remarkable and fascinating story. As I have already indicated, the scene has changed and has been completely transformed. Put in simple language that I can understand, those changes mean that we have more than one string to our bow so far as our fuel for energy requirements are concerned. The scientists, the engineers, the platform constructors and the men who man them have brought good fortune to Britain. Britain is on the way towards being Europe's richest nation in indigenous fuel supplies.
What about the new coal discoveries? We have Selby, and in the hat at the moment is the Belvoir coalfield. I hope that this will result in as successful a conclusion as Selby. However, one reads that there are inhibitions and protests about the possibility of coal in the Vale of Belvoir. However, all of these sources of coal are necessary. The National Coal Board has already begun its operations to mine coal in the Selby coalfield—all this is outlined in the Plan for Coal—so as to make a bigger contribution to our energy requirements.

1353
Turning to the trade unions, Mr. Len Murray was this morning described by one of our newspapers—completely unjustifiably, I think—as arrogant. Recently he published an article in which he said:
"The temptation to the public to be euphoric about the nation's energy requirements must be enormous. Many people see the pipelines in the North Sea as lifelines rescuing them from the risk of running short of fuel and power, or falling victim to hyper-inflation prices, keeping motor cars on the roads, their homes and offices warm and ships, factories and railways running."
The fuel at the nation's disposal for energy requirements in the immediate future is a justifiable reason for jubilation. However, the evidence is that there could be an energy gap by the turn of the century, a point which has been referred to by more than one speaker today. I should like to emphasise that it would be a mark of wisdom if jubilation were to be tempered by caution. Energy wealth is not for squandering. One of our tasks is to avoid prodigality. Fossil fuels, whether liquid or solid, should not be merely for burning. We should make the most of the opportunity to process and obtain derivatives from coal and oil.
May I turn to the approach of the TUC to this new situation. The TUC is an important body which represents many people. It deals not only with wages and conditions but also with many other questions. It has not only power but responsibility. According to the evidence at my disposal, the TUC and the individual unions in the fuel and energy industries are displaying a positive and realistic approach to this new, transformed situation. In the same article Mr. Murray said:
"Entranced by the news of the oil flowing more and more copiously from around our Island in the next few years, too few people yet know and do not expect to find an energy gap by the 1990s."
It is this gap that the unions have their eyes on.
In the first place, there has been a streamlining and unification of the unions in the fuel and energy industries. Instead of the 14 unions concerned with those industries advancing their own energy plans in isolation, the TUC has its own fuel and energy committee. The leading spokesmen of the 14 unions meet regularly. What is more, since 1973 they have given their comprehensive view of
1354
what the energy policy should be, in the interests of the nation, to both this and the previous Government. To achieve this aim, they say that the first prerequisite and proposal, with which I agree entirely, is that there should be co-ordination and planning by the Government and the fuel industries.
Surely there is nothing wrong or outrageous in co-ordinating the fuel and energy industries, planning for the present and the future, making the most of what we have and, in the process, making it last as long as possible. I believe that there is sagacity, determination and good will on the part of the TUC in deploying the idea of the co-ordination and planning of fuel resources.
My experience in coal mining over many years was that it was void of planning and higgledy-piggledy; anything would do. I know that in Nottinghamshire there are the most modern coalfields. But what did the old coalowners do? They worked first the best and the most profitable seams. They took the plums and left the stones. In those days, millions of tons—that is not an exaggeration—of this precious fuel were thrown into the waste, or into what we in mining circles call the gob, and never saw the light of day. It can never be recovered. For generations coal was treated with prodigality. I trust, hope and almost pray that we do not make the same error with both the old fuel and the new discoveries. The next proposal of the TUC was how to achieve coordination and planning. It could best be done by having an Energy Commission which should be given the task of devising a long-term integrated plan.
Your Lordships will be aware that last June an important conference was held. It was a representative meeting of the energy industry, the consumers, the trades unions, academic and professional bodies, political parties and environmental pressure groups and there was general agreement on the need for planning and co-ordination procedures and that the setting up of an Energy Commission was the best way of fulfilling that requirement. The only question I wish to put to my noble friend who is to reply to the debate is this: I understand that, since the conference, discussions have taken place between the Minister and the TUC and I should like to ask whether a Ministerial decision has

1355
been made in regard to the Energy Commission; and, if so, when will an announcement be made?
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that my own trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers, has welcomed the move for an integrated energy policy. There are many facets to the energy question. I have spoken of only three: conservation, co-ordination and planning our resources. Fuel for energy in Britain has a bright prospect and one of our tasks is to avoid squandering the wealth of the fuel that we possess and to plan its delivery and use for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
6.12 p.m.
Lord BAKER: My Lords, it was originally my intention to speak on only two minor subjects: alternative sources of energy, and what I thought of as the rather dull and humdrum subject of energy conservation; but when the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, included that in his opening speech I realised that I need not be apologetic. I should like to join in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord for introducing this important debate.
The purpose of alternative sources of energy is to save fossil fuel. Even in modern times we have never been absolutely dependent upon them. Hydro-electric power has always been fed into the national grid, and there are other major undertakings, such as the Severn Barrage, which could have been exploited for the same purpose when the need arose. What we have neglected in modern times are those basic sources of energy, the sun and the wind.
When the oil crisis broke on us some years ago I worried because I wondered what my grandchildren would do in their old age, but I ceased to worry soon afterwards when, travelling in a small ship, I had the exhilarating experience of 48 hours of a full Atlantic hurricane. There was all the energy that the world needed; all we had to do was to harness it. That is the engineer's job, and my confidence in the skill and courage of the engineer is such that I have no fear of the world grinding to a halt. Of course it had nothing to do with my experience in the hurricane, but it was delightful to see, some time ago, that the Department of
1356
Energy is supporting a number of developments of methods of trapping the energy of sea waves. I believe that has great promise and I hope that industry and the City will see that these contributions, which have come in the main from workers in the academic world, do not lack vigorous support.
I was much cheered to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, had an interest in this activity. Here is the making of a new industry. It is essentially a British concept. It will help not only to supply our own energy needs, but will give us a new export trade. It is a remarkably well-timed activity because it will provide further employment to the outstanding civil engineering skills which we have developed for North Sea oil development; as this falls off the wave power needs will come forward.
Then there is the sun, the source of our fossil fuel. It is still there. We are slowly facing the problem of its immediate use, but too slowly. There are many in British Industry who consider that anybody tapping solar energy for anything more ambitious than heating a swimming pool is a crank. That is a short-sighted policy. Other countries, notably the United States of America and France, are working hard on solar energy projects and there are great possibilities, even in our latitudes. No doubt many of your Lordships will have seen a thoughtful article by the Astronomer Royal in the periodical Nature of 12th May. He dealt fully with many energy problems and he included with the two items, wave power and solar energy, the use of windmills or wind turbines, and he foresees there—and I agree with him—the possibilities of a new industry and more export trade.
All these methods are complementary. In fact the whole subject of alternative sources of energy, although they may be only marginal, is a great challenge to our engineers and to our industry. I say "engineers" advisedly. In all the discussions we have had here today, although it has not always been mentioned, running through the speeches has been the need for engineers, not only for developing alternative sources of energy but in connection with atomic energy or the getting of coal.
In the last many years there has been much damaging confusion—damaging

1357
to our economic life—in the minds of the people about who does what, so I intend to define my idea of an engineer. He is a person who conceives and creates new machines, structures and systems; creates new things that work, and work within strict economic constraints. He is not afraid of making new investigations when they are essential, but he does not cultivate them for their own sake in the name of that overworked activity, research. I do not care what his background or initial education was; whether he set out to be a classical scholar or a physicist. It is the final product and the final aim which counts. I go back to the great days when one could accept an open classical scholar to read for an engineering course. I am afraid those days have gone and it is very sad.
However successful these paragons of mine are in producing new devices for alternative energy, as has been mentioned many times today, this takes time. Twenty years is nothing in the full development of a new engineering product. If we attempt to do it more rapidly, as during the war, it is very costly. So there is likely to be an energy gap and that must be bridged, and bridged by conservation. There is scope for enormous saving of all kinds of fuel right across our activities in industry, commerce and the home. But here I must admit that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has covered all the points that I was proposing to make. He has a great deal more knowledge of this subject than I have and I will touch on it only very briefly.
I was going to ask the Minister what results have we been obtaining from the very great efforts, the comprehensive circulars from the Department of Energy and so on, to encourage people to save energy. It is surprising to find that such a large proportion of our national consumption of primary energy goes into buildings and such an appreciable proportion into heating private houses. The steps that we can take seem so simple: improvements of thermal insulation can save so much energy that it is remarkable that we seem to be so unsuccessful. But when you realise that, though the cost of thermal insulation in a new house is a small portion only of the total cost of the house, in these inflationary days it is not surprising that young people who are
1358
buying new houses should economise and raise as small a mortgage as they possibly can. It is pathetic, since they could not find a better investment than money spent initially on producing a high standard of insulation in their house. We really must find some way of encouraging them. We waste energy so easily, and the practical steps, the physical steps, for stopping that are not difficult. One can see that in rented property the cost of insulation is liable to be a discouraging factor, because the cost is borne by the landlord and the benefit goes to the tenant. I am no expert in these things, but I am quite certain there are those ingenious enough to produce schemes to correct this.
In existing buildings other than houses, again much can be done, and I know it is being done, particularly in Government-managed buildings, by the fuel economy unit of the Property Services Agency. They do it by upgrading existing controls and other modifications. I should like to ask: Have we any information on the economies being achieved, particularly in industry, both private and nationalised? In new buildings—and let us hope we are soon to have a spate of new factories—we should be able to achieve much greater economies by integrating all energy factors, as it were. But I must not say any more on this because it is a problem in which I am engaged myself. I only hope that others, including Government laboratories, are giving it their attention, too.
My Lords, while preparing notes for this debate I had the uneasy feeling that I had experienced all this before, and I think it was the analogy between energy conservation now and civil defence in the Second World War. Before the war anyone advocating action in civil defence was considered a depressing crank. Even during the war civil defence was hardly considered a glamorous service, though I may remind your Lordships that it had its moments. Civil defence unaided could not have won the war, any more than energy conservation now will turn the great generators in our power stations. But if we had not learned—and it was at the twelfth hour—how to give effective protection to the people, and in particular how to safeguard our industrial production against bombing, the outcome of the war might have been very different. Let us

1359
ensure that we deal as effectively, and before the twelfth hour, with this rather similar problem of the conservation of energy.
6.25 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bessborough is no longer in his place but, for the Record, I should like to say how very much I appreciated his warm thanks for changing the batting order. It was not a difficult request to grant. It fortified me in my determination to be very short in speaking this afternoon, and also it enabled me to hear two more very important speeches, as well as his own, which I thoroughly appreciated.
I do not propose to go over the same word-sodden ground that we all seem to be treading this afternoon. When your Lordships come to read Hansard tomorrow you will find that most of us have said very much the same thing in a variety of very well chosen and well delivered words. I might add that what we want nowadays are facts rather than words. As one who has spent most of his working life in engineering—and I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for his reference to engineers—I must point out that whichever form of imptoved energy production we embark upon we shall require machinery, whether it is machinery for more effective getting and utilisation of coal, whether it is machinery for producing nuclear energy generators; it is the production machinery that we are going to need.
As an engineer, I can assure your Lordships that what engineers need is time; they want decisions, and this is what we are lacking at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, pointed out, the number of words and the written matter that has been made available on the question of nuclear energy production, for instance, is really terrific. What is needed is for someone to make up his mind as to what type of coal utilisation and coal extraction is going to be decided upon, and decide also what type of nuclear reactor is going to be made, and then give the necessary orders.
I remember once during the war having to go to a Minister and say to him, "I am sorry, Minister, but you have lost
1360
20 tanks this week". He said, "What do you mean?". I said, "Well, I should have had the order for 20 tanks a week ago. The production rate is 20 a week. The order was a week late, so you have lost 20 tanks". It did seem to have some effect and I got the order quite quickly. This is the kind of thing we are short of in the energy field. No one has given the decisive go-ahead to have the machinery produced or to have the research done, and so we have lost that much time. Whoever delays his decision is doing a very anti-social act in these days.
We all know that coal and oil are finite in their supply, so in the years to come we shall be forced to use nuclear energy, about which our scientists know enough already to have production devices made. We can talk about solar energy and wave energy and that sort of thing, but for real solid power I think we shall have to go to nuclear energy and make up our minds what should be done. My practical suggestion for a programme is that there should be accelerated research into the getting and utilisation of coal, the kind of research that the National Coal Board under Sir Derek Ezra is doing so well and effectively, and parallel to that a decision should be taken as to which kind of nuclear device we are going to have. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who paid such an emotive and well-deserved tribute to the miners, that we owe a great debt of gratitude to miners of the past. In the future the miner should be a white-collared technician who works a push-button control device and earns more money for less human effort.
6.30 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, so much has been said already in this important debate that I am sure we all feel a very great sense of gratitude to the noble Lords who initiated it and to some of those who have spoken with such enormous authority and a very great deal of personal experience and knowledge of the topic with which we are concerned. It is difficult for me to follow them. However, if I may, I should like to make two or three points.
First, it seems to be obvious to all of us that through our great good fortune we shall have at least a few years of affluence before the night descends upon

1361
us again and before we finally run out of North Sea oil. We have made enormous use of its promise. But let us remind ourselves that there is more energy in the Selby coalfield than there is in all the oil in the North Sea. Let us remember that we may have it for a period of, perhaps, 15 or 20 years. During that time we have the chance—it is the only chance we may ever have—to reconstitute and revitalise our industry and reorganise it so that when we no longer have oil as a source of revenue we shall become competitive again, as we no longer are, in world markets.
It seems to me that this is almost our last chance and if we fail to take it we shall have been using a precious capital resource as revenue and spending it for ordinary day-to-day purposes, as I am afraid we have so often done in the past. Therefore, my first plea to the Government is that they will seize the opportunity afforded by the respite from pressure to use revenue derived from North Sea oil as a capital resource rather than treat it as if it were an ordinary source of revenue. It will come and go far too quickly for it to be abused in that way.
Secondly, there is no doubt that sometime we shall need more energy than we at present have and I suspect that we shall be unable to rely entirely on coal. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, made clear, it is scandalous that coal should be used merely for burning. It should be a source of raw material of all kinds, as it used to be so regarded before oil took its place as a feed stock for so many chemical processes. This means that sooner or later we shall have to rely quite heavily on nuclear power.
I remember the beginnings of the nuclear power industry in this country and the enormous enthusiasm with which it was hoped to tame the power of the atom and make the world prosperous and rich, and life easy for all of us. In those days few of us doubted that the promise would be fulfilled quite quickly. It has been a source of continuous and bitter disappointment that it has taken so long to achieve nuclear power; so many have been disappointed and so many men have been ruined during the course of its development.
I have said more than once— and I think it is true—that the development of
1362
nuclear power in this country has in some ways been the biggest national industrial disaster that has ever befallen us. That may seem an extraordinary statement to make, but, nevertheless, it has a real foundation in truth. Many firms lost all their working capital trying to develop nuclear power stations on which they lost enormous sums of money. It is also true that many of our best engineers were diverted from what might have been more profitable enterprises into the building of nuclear power stations. There was an enormous amount of duplication of effort. There was a time when there were five consortiums each independently trying to design nuclear power stations—none of which was ever used as a model for the next because every successive order was placed before anyone had time to learn the lessons of the last installation.
Then, of course, there was the disaster which befell the nuclear power industry as a result of Suez. That is a long time ago now, but it is true to say that we are still paying the ultimate price of the Suez affair, and we are paying it in the present difficulties and in the virtual disappearance of much of our heavy industry. At the time of Suez it was thought that oil would cease to be available because it could never get round the Cape. Orders for nuclear power stations were doubled. They were doubled again; they were doubled for a third time. Then oil came round the Cape and the price of oil dropped. The number of orders was halved and then halved again. Finally, because of the growing efficiency of the stations themselves the number of orders was halved for a third time, almost abolishing the order book completely.
Then came Mr. George Brown and his astonishing plan to revive the industry. More orders were placed in one year than have ever been placed in 10 years since. There was a sudden peak demand and then a total collapse. No industry anywhere in the world could have survived the treatment from successive Governments with which the electrical power industry has had to cope. I saw the collapse of what had been the proudest factory in Europe in Trafford Park. It lost £5 million or £6 million on an order for a nuclear power station which it regarded at the time as an investment in the confident expectation that it would be able to recoup its losses on successive

1363
orders for the same design. It never received a second order because the Government changed their policy.
In effect, through the constant fluctuations in demand for power stations, the Government have gone far to destroy much of the greatest asset that England had; namely, its industrial power and the capital which made it possible for great firms to embark on new enterprises. All their efforts were made almost as acts of patriotism; they were told that they must divert their resources to the creation of nuclear power. They did so, and as a result some of them were ruined.
So we have this astonishing story of the disasters of nuclear power. When the original development was initiated just after the war it was thought that there would be a tremendous shortage of fossil fuels and then a tremendous shortage of uranium. As a result the breeder reactor was devised because it makes it possible to use the same uranium over and over again and get 60 or 70 times as much power out of it as it yields in a simple reactor. It now turns out that there is no shortage of uranium and that the cost of processing the spent fuel from the breeder reactor is much more than was thought to be likely. Furthermore, it turns out that the best estimates that can now be made for the capital cost of a breeder reactor are considerably greater than those for a more conventional reactor which does not breed. In other words, breeder reactors are no longer necessary; they are extremely expensive and, much worse, they are a most potentially disastrous source of danger. If they were to be used on a large scale the plutonium which would be needed would be a danger to those who use it and—and more particularly—it would be a potential source of disaster were it to be commandeered, captured or seized by terrorists or anyone else.
It is that more than anything else which has perturbed people, and for that reason the Americans have concluded that their own efforts to build a breeder reactor should cease. I believe that President Carter will cancel contracts which have been proposed for the building of breeder reactors in America. I wonder what will happen to the programme in this country? Vast investments were made in Dounreay
1364
which was held up for years as the bright hope for the future. It now turns out that Dounreay is unnecessary, that the design based upon the original concept will be expensive and, of course, that the process of refining the plutonium will be disastrously hazardous and, if at all possible, it should be stopped. That is my next point.
Finally, during the brief interval we have the most important single decision, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas; that is, that we choose a good design to build. It is acutely important that this design choice should not be dictated by commercial considerations. Very recently, we were saved from the embarrassment which might have befallen us had we copied the Americans and made the lightwater reactor which was at one time recommended for our adoption by Sir Arnold Weinstock. It is this reactor which has so aroused the very reasonable fears of many people, and it is this reactor which has now been "sat-in on" by protesters in America, Germany, France, and, I saw recently, in Alsace. The reason is that it is not intrinsically safe; in other words, if things go wrong with it it can blow up in a manner which is not possible for certain other designs.
Since I have been rather gloomy so far, I should like to tell your Lordships what I regard as the most remarkable success story of the atomic energy business known to me. When Dr. Lewis went to Chalk River in 1950, or thereabouts, he found in the files at Chalk River a document in the handwriting of John Cockcroft identifying and detailing a design for a type of reactor using heavy water both as the coolant and the moderator, and using ordinary unenriched uranium. This idea was seized on by Lewis and adopted as the official programme of the Canadians in spite of considerable opposition. It finally resulted in the enormous power station in Pickering near Toronto using what is now called the Candu reactor. I think this reactor is the best of its kind anywhere in the world. It is certainly the only reactor of substantial size—in other words, about 500 megawatts—which has been built in five years from start to finish, and commissioned in 18 days after it first went critical.
This is an achievement quite without parallel elsewhere in the world. It was

1365
finished in five years. Our own standard time for completion is seven years, and we have never been less, except on very rare occasions, than three years late. So our own design takes twice as long to build. This machine has been costed and has been compared by the Ontario Hydro people, who own it, with a very large coal burning plant which was built about the same time. They estimate that the cost of the nuclear generated power is about half as much as the cost of power generated from coal, which of course is quite cheap in that part of Canada; this, in spite of the present rate of interest, which is very substantial.
The American Ford Committee Report on nuclear power finally concluded that one should keep one's options open because the uncertainties in the proposed development in both nuclear power and coal burning stations are so large, and that possible errors in estimates for the cost of various components, and particularly the cost of money, are so great that it is not possible to say without doubt which will be the cheaper in the long term. They conclude that in some parts of the United States nuclear power will be cheaper, and in other places coal fired power will be cheaper. But this does not seem to me to pay regard to the enormously efficient machines which the Canadians have built.
I was talking to one rather depressed American nuclear scientist who told me the other day that so far as he could see they would end up by persuading the Canadians to build half a dozen Candu machines and buying the power from them because it would never do, he said, to accept in America a design produced in Canada. I rather fear that the same attitude has influenced very powerfully and undesirably the policy decisions taken in this country.
About a couple of years ago I introduced the chief scientist responsible for Candu to some of our own people and they all said, "No, we must develop our own. Ours are better" and so on. In fact, ours has not proved to be better. Our own development seems to be running into all sorts of minefields and their machines are still working, they are still making them, and the last prediction they made is that by developing them in what seemed to be a perfectly reasonable way; changing the coolant and switching to thorium instead
1366
of uranium, as they can do, they can produce power at about half the present cost of power in Canada for several hundreds of centuries. For several tens of thousands of years they can produce power at a price about half as great as the present going rate of power in Canada, which of course includes a great deal of power from the Niagara River as well as power from other sources.
It is difficult to make strict comparisons in terms of American cents and British pounds, but certainly the power that they can produce is cheaper than any we have in this country. It seems to me, and this is a point I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister who is to reply, that this design has already been so successful and has such enormous potential for future development that it must not be neglected. If all went well in a very complicated arrangement I made on the telephone last month I hope that Mr. Benn saw Dr. Lewis last week, but I do not think that, of itself, is sufficient to persuade a very voluble Minister of a case presented by a man who is sometimes a little taciturn.
Lord STONE: My Lords, having elaborated, no doubt, is there any chance of a risk just as great in this or not?
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, it is probably one of the safest of designs. This is a complicated issue but of all the designs I think with one exception it is probably the safest. The problem of disposing of the waste is a difficult one, but it is nothing like so difficult as it would be if we once embarked on the processing of plutonium which would be necessary for British breeder reactors.
Again, the calculations that have been made suggest that all the power which the world can need, if the population increases to four times what it is at the moment, and if everyone has power as great as the power now available to an ordinary American, which of course is about 100 times as great as is available to most, could in fact be provided from the known ores of thorium for many hundreds of centuries. The disposal of the waste products will be difficult, but by no means insuperable.
So all is not lost. The point I make is we have power at the moment. We shall not have as much power as we need in

1367
10 or 20 years' time. It is essential that the nuclear power industry should be preserved. It is vitally important that we do not deal it any more mortal blows such as have been inflicted on it so often in the course of its checkered career, and that somehow a decision to make reactors of a type suitable for ultimate development to supply the demand of the world shall be taken, and that the decision should be based on technical merit and not on either commercial or political pressures. I believe that we have every chance, if we take it, of surviving until the oil runs out. Thereafter, the future is ours to make and we make it today.
6.48 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, like the remainder of your Lordships, I have been completely spellbound by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, and I hope that the Minister, if he takes no notice of any other speech, will look at the observations of Lord Bowden and Lord Thomas as very important points to bear in mind in reaching some realistic conclusions regarding what is called by the politicians a crisis. The politicians love this word "crisis". They live on it. Is there a crisis? I am not very convinced, because if there is a crisis, it is really a crisis of having a surplus of thermal energy, just like the mountains of butter in Europe about which we do not know what to do. At the same time, I am reminded by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that we must keep in our memories the lessons of the past, because on the other side of the energy picture we have over 1 million pair of idle hands, over 1 million units of human energy for whom we have not yet found useful or dignified sources of employment. To my mind, if there is a crisis that is it, and, like the noble Earl, I would remind your Lordships that the principal ingredient of the birth of the Third Reich was unemployment. We should keep that in mind.
I support the observations of the noble Lords, Lord Sherfield and Lord Thomas, in their vivid expressions of opinion regarding the surplus of paper pulp, vocal gas and political power generated by the politicians and environmentalists. If it were not for that very strong team in the last decade we in this country should have got off the ground a number of new
1368
ventures which would have done a great deal to absorb the nation's unemployment, but at every turn any new venture is strangled at birth by the environmentalists or politicians.
Probably the most peaceful period on earth for horno sapiens was his first 1 million or so years, when he was quite content to live by the use of his hands and two pieces of stone. He used fire only to keep himself warm or to cook his food. Then he discovered that he could smelt metals by using fire, and that is when it all began, because then he discovered the wheel. Ever since he has been trying to find additional sources of energy to fabricate the minerals of the earth and turn wheels. If I may be a little philosophic, this arouses all the normal ingredients of human nature, of greed and lust for power. So one can say that the advent of the wheel may have been the beginning of the interrelationships that fail to exist between nation and nation; but perhaps that is not a part of this debate.
The point I would re-echo is that made by our newly acquired distinguished engineer, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who pointed out that whenever there was an energy need, the engineer had never failed to solve it. We could tell your Lordships about minerals which, even when held in the hand, can emit direct currents of electricity. These minerals can now be synthesised, but at the moment there is no real need to use such miniature sources of energy. I could remind noble Lords also that in the early days of the battery, coal was one of the ingredients used; one could therefore romantically ask why we should not turn our coal seams into batteries. That we shall do in the future, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, said, coal will remain king for a very long time to come.
Nevertheless, like all other sources of fuel which create thermal energy, they are wasting assets. We must therefore, as many noble Lords have pointed out, always look to the future, to the time when these resources have been consumed. As Lord Baker pointed out, we must look for supplementary sources of energy and we should look very closely at those which are eternal. The two major such sources are the earth's interior, about which I will not elaborate, the sun and the sea;

1369
we have the prospect of harnessing the tides of the sea in the hollow of our hand if we only look intelligently at history.
The simple problem is to create a barrage to withstand the tidal motion of the sea. The French have designed tidal turbines which they have installed at the exit of the River Rance, which proves beyond doubt that if one incorporated them into a barrage one would have the power of the sea at one's service. It really now comes down, as an engineering problem, to the question of constructing barrages swiftly and economically. If we look back four or five centuries we find the greatest barrage builders the world has ever seen, the Dutch. They wrested the whole country by pushing the North Sea back by one barrage after another.
The Dutch built their barrages long before cement was invented, and they have practically no stone in Holland. Their dams are made of clay. They discovered that the sea would not erode clay, and so they put clay in wickerwork baskets and built their dams. The sea glides over the dams and does not smash them to pieces as it does any concrete or stone pier that is projected into the sea. We should therefore take that empirical evidence of success and convert it into modern technology. The sea does not erode clay because clay is water repellent, so any substance that is water repellent will be unmoved by the motion of the sea.
If one takes a plastic bag, which is water repellent, one can fill it full of water and it will drop to the sea floor and never move again. If one fills the same plastic bag with any rubbish imaginable, ties it up and drops it to the sea floor, one there has the beginnings of an embankment. I declare an interest when I say that in our laboratories we have carried out researches on the bearing capacity and durability of plastic bags, and we have found that the strength of these plastic bags is equivalent to an equal volume of reinforced concrete, but it has the added advantage of being one-third of the cost and, even more important, of being able to withstand the movement of the sea.
With this evidence in mind, we have carried out a desk exercise on the use of such plastic bag embankments and we have incontestable evidence to show that if a barrage could be put across the River
1370
Severn, enough marine electricity would be produced to service the whole of the South-West of England and South Wales. Thus, if instead of impeding the shipping of the Bristol Channel by projecting a pier across it, we put a loop 12 miles long between Cardiff and Newport and made that loop a barrage composed of plastic bags filled with the coal refuse of all the tips within 30 miles of Cardiff, we calculate that within five years we should have created a barrage one-quarter of a mile wide and 12 miles long. We calculate that that would provide employment for about 500 men. In this barrage we could incorporate all the characteristics of the Rance barrage, which has proved a success. It has two rivers feeding the area that would be impounded by the barrage. It has maritime areas which would become desalineated and provide a new area for horticulture. It would have an acreage big enough to create an aerodrome almost as big as Heathrow and within two hours of Paddington. It would have, on the seaward side, deep water in which large ships could anchor. It would have a surface area on which new factories and new ventures could get off the ground because they would have available to them hydro-electricity—the cheapest of all types of electricity.
This kind of operation could be carried out in a large number of other places. We could swallow up the tips of Pen Maen Mawr and do the same thing in the Menai Straits. We could go into Morecambe Bay and to many parts of the West Coast of Scotland and do the same thing. In other words, what I am saying is that those countries which have access to the sea are the countries which are blessed with the biggest source of eternal energy available to us in this century.
7.2 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, that is a speech very difficult to follow. I should have liked to follow my noble friend, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his global appraisal of the energy problem because, in our quite proper preoccupation with national needs, we tend to forget that our energy problems are indeed global and, cumulatively, concern not only our livelihoods but our lives. All life is energy and all living things depend upon energy. When we are talking here about energy, we are talking not about the future of

1371
our industries but, in the end, about the fate of homo sapiens. I apologise to my noble friend, Lord Wynne-Jones, for the fact that I was otherwise engaged during the early part of the debate. I decided that I would be economical and unambitious in my contribution tonight. Indeed, I have almost been compelled to be so by the speeches that have preceded mine.
What we are talking about in some senses is a reassessment of where we stand not just in terms of disappointments and failures. I followed my noble friend Lord Bowden with great sympathy in his study of the catastrophes that overtook the engineering side of the British nuclear programme, but we are looking—and, I hope, looking afresh—at the kind of things that have been fairly self-evident for a very long time.
The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, has dealt magnificently with the question of tidal power. We know that the French have done it and that we could have done it with a Severn barrage and elsewhere. The noble Lord's proposals are of course fascinating, but there is also the question of wave energy which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale—and I apologise to him for not having heard his speech—and by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. This seems to me—and I believe that both noble Lords will agree with me—one of the most exciting, accessible and, I believe, immediately achievable ideas that I know of. I have been fascinated because I am aware of the work of the University of Edinburgh and of Dr. Salter and his "duck" system. This seems to me to have everything to commend it. First, the essential tidal science is known. Dr. Salter has developed this system, in which a line of duck-like sections bob and, in the process of bobbing, pump energy into a system. The system is delightfully simple because, in this rocking process that generates the energy, one can have a series that is the equivalent of the vertebrae of the spine. The sections are articulated in a loose, spinal system which means that there is no solid barrage to be broken up, no fixed resistance. Therefore, one can have this on the surface, coping entirely and immediately with the tidal forces.
What fascinates me here is that I can see nothing required for this process—
1372
and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will agree with me—that does not already exist. We only need the imagination and the engineering resources to put it into operation. In this case we cannot really complain because behind this is some £2½ million of research and project money. It will need a great deal more if it is to be extended into either the Pentland Firth or the Outer Hebrides, but the fact is that I reckon that we could have a very effective pilot system in a few years and I am quite certain that this method of wave generation of energy could certainly be operated in magnitude by the turn of the century.
We keep on—quite rightly, I believe—looking at the turn of the century as the critical point in our discussion, but I reckon in an off-the-cuff calculation that we could produce the equivalent of almost a third of the electricity that this country might require by the turn of the century, in 30 years or so. This is a tremendous challenge because we are not looking at a speculative idea, or, at least, it is speculative only in the sense that it calls for the imagination and the engineering resources that we may not have. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that we have squandered our engineers in the sense that we have allowed them to be misused or attracted away, but also we have squandered the tremendous fascination and attraction which engineering used to have for the younger generation. We may have difficulty, though I do not think we shall, but we certainly need far more engineering students for the development of this kind of scheme than we have now.
We need far greater imagination in high places and we need a great deal more recognition that the simple facts of life—that is, nature itself—can still produce for us much more than we have so far asked of it. We have been shutting our eyes to that. Therefore, we ought, in my opinion, to be concentrating on solar, tidal and wave energy, on geothermal energy and on the potential biochemical production of power—the photosynthetic development of consumable power. These things are there. We have looked at them hard and we should look at them harder.
There is one other point that the noble Lords, Lord Sherfield and Lord Bowden,

1373
have prompted me to follow up. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was talking about the difficulties with which we have been confronted in terms of the breeder plants and the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has followed, as I should have done, with the emphasis that the breeder is now, to put it mildly, suspect in the sense that we have grave misgivings about its application.
Twenty-five years ago I was writing on the breeder reactor and I called it the pixilated pile, on the analogy of the pixies refilling the coal scuttle every time you stoke the fire. The reactor, then as now, would produce as much fissile material as it would consume. The nuclear furnace of fissile material would radiate a blanket of uranium, or uranium waste, from conventional reactors and convert it into fissile plutonium, which at the moment is the preferred principle. This raises the question of the dangers of too much plutonium—liable, as we have been told, to fall into the wrong hands—or difficult to cope with because plutonium is indestructible and remains active for hundreds of thousands of years. It is a man-made element, and nature has no contrivance with which to deal with it at the moment, and it is indeed the most dangerous poison known to man, in the most microscopic quantities. That is why the breeder programme is viewed with concern and why the "plutonium economy" is contemplated with totally justifiable—and I insist upon that term—alarm.
However, 25 years ago, when I was writing about the pixilated pile, we were considering a feasible and alternative option which seems to have been overlooked in the obsession with the needs for military plutonium. That alternative was to use thorium. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Bowden bring us back again to thorium. Those of my generation may recognise thorium as the glowing coating on the old Welsback gas-mantles. Natural thorium could be used as the blanket in the conversion stage of the breeder reactor. The radiation from the nuclear "furnace"—that is to say, the core of the reactor—would convert the thorium 232 (that is natural thorium) into uranium 233, a fissile material. This could be substituted for most of the uranium in the blanket and the fissionable uranium 233, from thorium, would be
1374
mixed with enough uranium 238 (that is to say, natural uranium) to "denature" it: that is, to make it unsuitable for use in a nuclear weapon without a process as complicated as the original production.
I am reinforced in my support for the thorium alternative by an article in the May issue of the Scientific American by two Princeton University professors, Harold Feiveson and Theodore B. Taylor, arising from a study they prepared for the Council of Foreign Relations. It is a carefully tempered article, which concludes:
"We wish to make a case that, given certain alternative reactor engineering characteristics of a thorium cycle and the fact that uranium 233 and uranium 238"—
uranium 233 being a by-product of thorium—
"can be denatured whereas plutonium cannot, the present world-wide momentum towards a uranium-plutonium breeding cycle in preference to the thorium option should at least be thoroughly re-examined before irreversible commitments are made to a plutonium economy".
My Lords, I would subscribe to that.
I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Bowden had to say not only about the Pickering reactor—the heavy water reactor in Canada—but also about the possibilities of the thorium process being developed in the safe systems existing in Canada today. I recommend very strongly to my noble friend the Leader of the House the prospect of rethinking the breeder reactor on a thorium cycle, and I commend to him that article in the May issue of the Scientific American.
7.16 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and I should like to say that there is another very interesting project which is being undertaken in the United States on extracting the thermal energy from the oceans. I think that there is a great similarity between that initiative and our own initiative on wave motion in this country. I think that in due course probably both projects could be integrated in some way. In this energy debate we are considering what I think is man's most valuable asset next to food. If there are any two commodities—energy and food—which are more important to

1375
survival, they would be difficult to find; I do not need to emphasise that most of the world's population is short of one or the other, or both.
At present, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, 40 of the 48 black and Arab States are unable to feed themselves and have to depend upon imported food to survive. Only nine countries of the African Continent as a whole produce more food than 10 years ago, and the rest declined, notably Algeria by 59 per cent., Niger by 54 per cent., and Burundi by an incredible 82 per cent.—all of this while the populations of Africa increase at a runaway pace and food production declines at an average 2 per cent. per annum.
On the other hand, the energy situation in some of these countries is different, and where natural and strategic energy resources are available it is generally found that the food situation is also better. Luckily for ourselves we are not in a situation which others are in, where we have to rely heavily on imported fuels. If we did, I doubt whether we could sustain the present population, and we certainly could not sustain anywhere near the present standard of living. All of us now realise the importance of energy and the need to use it effectively.
The Select Committee report which is now before your Lordships covers three Commission documents which attempt, in a statistical way, to focus the Community's attention on the problems. From this rather mixed bag, nothing positive emerges, except the dire warnings referred to by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale; but I want to make one or two points which I think are relevant to our own situation and interests in this country.
First, the most valuable step towards creating an energy-dependent society (that is what we are moving into now) is to take stock of what resources we have and to deploy these in the most beneficial manner. Of course, conservation of energy, or the avoidance of waste, is an essential for every nation, and it can produce spectacular results within a very short time. It makes people realise the value of energy. and encourages them to
1376
use it sensibly, provided it is priced realistically. However, if we relied entirely on conservation policies to take us into the industrial future, we would get nowhere very fast because national progress depends very much upon the increased use of energy, and all the forecasts show energy consumption is rising, not falling. Maybe it will not rise so fast as in recent years, but certainly it will rise at probably the 2 per cent. rate as mentioned several times in the debate already, and as forecast in many places. Of course, I think we have to secure energy supply for ourselves. The other Member States of the Community will in future become increasingly concerned about energy supply because they are not so well endowed as we are, so these EEC energy documents obviously tend to reflect the Continental situation more than the United Kingdom situation, and they should therefore be recognised as such.
But that is not to say that we are immune from all the difficulties in the future because of our newly-found reserves. Adverse conditions may build up in the rest of the Community, as well as in the rest of the world, and pressures will be put upon us. For example, the world market for uranium is soft at the moment, but it is likely to harden considerably by 1985. In fact, it is a buyer's market now, and I think that perhaps the Government should take account of this, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough suggested earlier on in the debate. Fast breeder reactor and fusion reactor technology may not develop according to plan, and renewable energy sources may not live up to expectation. All of this could precipitate a crisis for us, which we do not want in the critical nineties and early in the next century. There will be covetous eyes, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale drew to our attention, on our energy resources, and we must be sure that they are not depleted at a rate which is against our interests. This, I think, is most important.
I should now like to turn to transport. The Government are about to produce a White Paper on transport policy which, judging by the tangerine-coloured consultative Paper which we have already seen and debated, is going to be more concerned, perhaps, with social needs than with the economic needs; yet the economic needs are in practice, I think, very much more important to the nation

1377
as a whole, because this provides the basis for prosperity. No one would deny that the social needs in transport are important, but I believe they can be defined perfectly well within the framework for the economic need.
One of the critical factors in transport is that 25 per cent. of oil-based energy goes into the vehicle sector as petrol and diesel oil. This is a substantial fraction, and we can see just by looking at the traffic outside here on any ordinary day that to replace this with an alternative energy source as efficient at the present time would be a mammoth task, I think, and virtually impossible. Because we are so dependent on petroleum and because of the massive investment in the internal combustion engine, we are bound to continue using petrol for a very long time in the future, and into the period when supplies will have to be derived from synthetic crude, or what is generally known as Syncrude, based on coal conversion.
There will come a point, therefore, when coal will assume great importance in our travel needs. If one looks more closely at this situation, one immediately appreciates that the cost of producing petrol will rise, and, assuming the same tax incidence, there will be a proportionate price rise as well. As natural crude supplies diminish, petrol prices will rise anyway, but the total demand will be satisfied only by the production of Syncrude from coal. Not only that, in terms of overall energy efficiency the conclusion has been reached in the Department of the Environment's recent report on future transport fuels, prepared by the energy research group of the Open University, that in the transport sector electricity derived directly from coal-burning power stations would provide a more efficient deployment of United Kingdom fuel resources than through the use of Syncrude to replace petroleum products derived from natural crude. This is also borne out by the US Department of Transport studies, and if one wants to put figures to this it can be shown that the drop in overall energy efficiency of the petrol-driven vehicle through using fuel derived from Syncrude is nearly 42 per cent.—and that is quite a high figure. Also, although the overall efficiency of the electric vehicle is seen to be the same as the internal combustion
1378
engined vehicle in the case of the natural crude economy, which we have at the moment, it is seen to be 71 per cent. more efficient in the case of the Syncrude economy.
The case for the electric vehicle and, incidentally, the hybrid, grows stronger, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has helped me to advocate this. In saying that, I must declare a two-fold interest in that I am president of the Electric Vehicle Association and my company, IRD, has just carried out a world-wide study of hybrid vehicles. The hybrid vehicle is a strong contender in the more immediate future, as it does not involve new technology and can be seen to have the double advantage of giving substantially more performance in terms of overall energy efficiency in the average stop-go conditions encountered on most daily journeys, together with unlimited range facility if needed. As nearly 50 per cent. of all daily journeys in this country are less than 40 miles, there is a strong case to consider the role of electric and hybrid vehicles in this country, and to further their development; yet the Transport Policy consultative document dismisses the electric vehicle in one sentence. Perhaps I may read it out:
"Research into sodium sulphur batteries or into various kinds of electrically-powered vehicles could have long-term implications for alternative energy sources".
It does not discuss the role of electric vehicles, or even suggest that there is a role for electric vehicles. That is all that is said in the document. I find this strange, especially when the GLC think that the electric vehicle is sufficiently important that it has initiated a £400,000 study, supported by the Department of Industry, to study its use over the next three years.
The US Congress regard the development of electric and hydrid vehicles as so important that they have secured the passage of an Act against presidential veto to enable the Administration, through the Energy Research and Development Administration, to spend 160 million dollars over five years to demonstrate and develop electric and hybrid vehicles. While we have 25,000 licensed battery electric vehicles on the roads in this country, we should not overlook the fact that, through Government support, the United States is likely to develop second

1379
generation electric vehicles within five years, and that these will be competing directly with British designs in overseas markets.
The US attitude to energy problems is summarised in President Carter's statement, the cornerstone of which is the reduction of demand through conservation; in other words, the elimination of waste. The presidential statement is of course a long one—it is 28 pages—but I think it is a convincing one. I have just recently spent three weeks in America, following the statement, and I was interested in gauging the reaction of Americans to it. I was speaking on the same platform as Congressman Mike McCormack, who piloted the Electric Vehicle Research Development and Demonstration Act through Congress, and he estimated that, by 1990, there would be 10 million electric vehicles on the roads in America, and by the year 2000, 20 million vehicles.
I think this gives an answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, when he said that the United States were looking for vehicles with alternative engines and were looking for 20 million by 1990—or something like that, I think he said. So far as I can see, they are all going to be electric and they are not going to have external combustion engines. Having talked to many Americans in all walks of life, I did not find one who was against the policy. Implementation will apparently involve 26 pieces (or thereabouts) of legislation, which will be hard going all the way, rather like a Grand National course. If there are any points that I would pick out they are that there is a welcome emphasis on the greater deployment of coal and more vigorous research and development into renewable energy sources, coupled with incentives in the transport sector. In the transport sector, the proposed vehicle sale taxes and scale of rebate makes the most immediate impact, with a maximum rebate for electric vehicles on a very generous scale indeed. It can be argued that the United States deserves this legislation because of its attitude to energy in the past; but the scope of the programme is not greatly different from what is being advocated in Europe. It is the extent of the programme which is perhaps
1380
the most startling thing to the US people and to outsiders.
There is one point which I should like to raise with the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who will be replying to this debate. It is to do with the gas guzzler tax scheme and the economy rebate scheme, and will affect the electric vehicle industry in the United Kingdom in particular, as well as a good many British gas guzzlers, such as Rolls-Royces and other models—and there are plenty of these about. In an unqualified statement President Carter specifically states that rebate schemes will be available for vehicles manufactured in the United States and in Canada. But, in the case of vehicles manufactured in other countries, they will be available only on the basis of treaties or executive agreements entered into between these countries and the United States; and the United States will work towards negotiating equitable rebate agreements.
My Lords, if this means what I think it means, then rebates will not be available on British vehicles exported to the United States unless rebates are negotiated on United States' vehicles being imported into the United Kingdom, and the basis for reckoning will be on fuel consumption rather than on size. From our point of view, this would be inequitable and I hope that the Government will examine this matter very carefully—and as we all know, the export of Rolls-Royces to America is a very valuable factor. I think it can have serious repercussions on our export position when it comes to vehicles and, in particular, electric vehicles. This is an industry in which the United Kingdom is paramount at the moment and in which the United States is fighting hard to build up one if its own.
My Lords, what lessons can we learn from the Carter initiative? There are many lessons, but one of the principal ones seems to me to be that energy waste is taxed and that energy thrift is rewarded through incentives. It is interesting to note how the incentives are to operate; in most cases through tax credits at point of sale with the object of stimulating the markets served by the industries involved, whether it be motor cars, power generation or solar energy. This has the added advantage of introducing innovative techniques.

1381
Attention is given to the problem of small businesses—and in this country I think we know of all the pressures which are suffered by the small businesses at the moment. A drive is being made on the development of renewable energy sources and the alternatives for the future. For a country which is prosperous and blessed with resources, the US energy programme is a bold initiative and it shows how much the maintenance and improvement in standards of living depends upon energy development and application, even in a wealthy country like the United States. I think that there are lessons for Europe as well as for this country, and I hope that the Government will consider carefully the implications of the US energy initiative both in its approach to United Kingdom energy policy as well as to European Community policy.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if there is a very large increase in electric vehicles and if they have to rely upon lead acid batteries, could he tell me whether there is, in fact, a sufficient supply of lead at the moment to meet this demand?
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I can say to the noble Viscount that the market for electric vehicles in this country is 2,500 and that this is largely a replacement market, but first-time buyers are now coming along rapidly. The industry has to depend on lead acid batteries. Improvements are being made on the design of that battery and considerable improvements in design of the vehicles as well, which will lead to a substantial improvement even in the short term. I think that in due course it can be expected that sodium sulphur batteries will be developed successfully and will come into production so that vehicle performance can be increased by something like five times.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Lord, but he has not quite answered the question. What I said was that if we vastly increase the number of electric vehicles and have still to rely upon lead acid batteries, is there sufficient lead available on a world basis to meet this demand? I appreciate that with any luck we shall move over to another kind of battery, but I still think that this question ought to be answered.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's point. So far as I am aware, there is sufficient lead in the world available to meet the demand of the lead acid battery producers.
7.34 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I just take up that point before going on to what I have to say. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will find, if he looks into it, that lead is one of the metals which is found in concentrations of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent.; but at the edge of the ore bodies there is a sharp drop to crustal abundance where we are talking about a few parts per million. This is unlike copper where there is a gradation of the concentration as you go outward from the centre of the ore body. If there is a substantial increase in the number of vehicles powered by lead acid batteries, I agree with the implication in the noble Viscount's question that we should probably run into a shortage and that research is needed into alternatives, such as the sodium sulphur battery, which would be particularly suitable for commercial vehicles and buses where the high temperature at which it has to operate would not be a disadvantage. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, I cannot see that the sodium sulphur battery will ever be useful for domestic purposes because it would be difficult to keep it at the temperatures required for it to operate while it is standing overnight in a garage. But that would not apply to commercial vehicles which were in constant use.
The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, I think, is the first speaker in this debate to mention the aspirations of the Third World—a not insignificant factor in calculating the availability of energy supplies to Great Britain, Europe, the OECD countries generally and the rest of the nations which will be competing in the 1980s and 1990s for diminishing supplies of fossil fuels. I think that unless we take their aspirations into account, we are likely to find that there is conflict developing between the parts of the world which are already industrialised and those who would like to share in the standard of living that we already enjoy. I shall return, if I may, to that point a little later. He says, and I agree with this, that we are not going to be immune from the problems facing the world in the 1980s and 1990s because of our indigenous

1383
reserves, that covetous eyes may be cast upon them; and no one has said yet whether, in the long term, there is going to be a sharing of resources among the Community. I know that it is not the existing policy of Her Majesty's Government; but when we do come to face the shortages, I dare say there will be considerable pressure on the British Government of the time to export some of the surplus oil, gas and coal at our disposal to keep the industrial machine turning in the rest of the Community.
That is not to say that I agree with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, at the start of the debate—and that seems a long time ago—when he remarked that during the 1980s the world supply will fail to keep up with the demand for oil. But this does not happen in the real world. What is more likely is that if supplies are restricted the price would tend to increase, as it did in 1973 and thereafter, until there is again a balance. The law of supply and demand operates in respect of energy resources as it does with any other commodity.
My Lords, that is why I find it hard to believe the assumption made by the Department of Energy, in a document entitled Energy Policy Review which has been drawn to my attention, that oil prices are expected to rise only by 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. in real terms between now and the end of the century. I should have thought that that was a gross underestimate and likely to invalidate many of the conclusions to which this document comes, including the estimates of total inland consumption of primary fuels between now and the year 2000, which are the centrepiece of the study. The Department of Energy is discussing an increase from 324·7 million tonnes of coal equivalent consumption in 1976, according to the provisional figures, to a band somewhere between 500 million and 650 million tonnes of coal equivalent in the year 2000. If we do some arithmetic on this, we find the lower of the two estimates implies a compound rate of growth of primary energy demand of 1·8 per cent., and the higher, 2·9 per cent. Somewhere in between those two figures would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, who thinks that we should be discussing a rate of growth of something like 2 per cent.
1384
If one looks back in history over the past 24 years, to make the period the same as from now until the end of the century, one finds the compound rate of growth was in fact 1·4 per cent., which is considerably lower than the lower of the two figures that I have quoted; this in a period when, as I have said, oil prices are expected to rise substantially, even on the Department's own estimates, 50 to 100 per cent. That is probably wrong by something like an order of magnitude.
They say also that uranium is likely to become scarcer and dearer, and no one can disagree with that. The quantity of gas available to us in Great Britain and Western Europe will be declining by that time, and I certainly do not find it easy to see how one can expect coal production to be expanded much beyond 135 million to 150 million tons although I understand that the NCB have made a study which is based on a target of 165 million tons by the end of the century.
The point I am making is that, if all primary fuels are going to become scarcer and dearer—and no one disagrees with that, although there is perhaps room for argument about the exact arithmetic—why should consumption he expected to rise at a faster rate in the next 24 years than it has done historically over the past 24 years for a good deal of which period fuel crises were either declining or static right up to the events of 1973?
In the very interesting study which has already been quoted and which was referred to the other clay in the Financial Times—and I have not read the full document—Professor Carroll Wilson of MIT is quoted as having said:
"Petroleum demand could exceed supply as early as 1983 if the OPEC countries maintain their present production ceilings because oil in the ground is more valuable to them than extra dollars that they cannot use".
Of course. I would not accept that demand will exceed supply because the price mechanism will come into play: but the underlying thought that Professor Wilson is enunciating here must obviously be that the sensible strategy for the OPEC countries—that is, to limit their production so as to extend the revenue from their oil so far as possible into the future and by creating artificial scarcity—is to raise present-day market prices.
Therefore, I would think that from the mid-1980s, at the latest, oil prices are

1385
going to be taking off, and the Department of Energy's assumptions are going to prove absurdly low. So far as Western Europe is concerned, there is an extremely interesting study by Robert Belgrave of BP, who shows that, if there is a 3 per cent. growth in primary energy demand from now until the end of the century, then the balance of oil imports into Western Europe as a whole would be no less than 70 per cent. of the estimated total amount of oil available in world trade. He says of course that that is barely credible bearing in mind that this would take place in the face of United States and Japanese competition for the same supply.
I would add, along with the noble Lord, Lord lronside, that the Third World is going to want its share of the available oil as well. So Mr. Belgrave concludes that if a growth rate as high as 3 per cent. is postulated, some of the results, including the level of oil imports, fall outside the range of credibility. He therefore constructs an alternative strategy in which growth falls to zero by the end of the century. Even so, that shows that we should be importing 615 million tonnes of oil by that time as well as large amounts of coal and gas.
For comparison, the study which my noble friend mentioned, which he obtained from the United States, the forecast of likely US energy supply/demand balances for 1985 and 2000 and implications for US energy policy prepared by the US Department of Commerce, shows that on the basis of very drastic policies for conservation the United States might be importing as little as 305 million tonnes by the turn of the century, but on historical trends the amount could be four times as large as that, or 1,220 million tonnes. That of course also falls outside the range of credibility. Mr. Belgrave suggests—and I think it is quite an understatement:
"…that it is imprudent, to put it mildly for Europe—or the UK—to plan on obtaining a greater share of what is available in the future than they did in the past".
I want to make a simple suggestion; that is, that we should be considering carefully the implications of the United Kingdom and European primary energy consumption levels being no larger at the turn of the century than they were in 1976; and what this means in terms of the standard of living of our peoples, how we
1386
can accommodate their aspirations within a zero growth scenario. I suggest that since the Department of Energy has already taken a look at a fairly wide range of assumptions in the document which was presented to Mr. Benn's conference, called "Energy R and D in the United Kingdom"—a discussion document which contained no less than seven scenarios—to accept one more, to include zero growth postulated as one further scenario, is not to imply any political endorsement of zero growth which might alarm Ministers and be thought to be a difficult proposition to sell to the public. It has only been looked at for the sake of discovering what further steps would have to be taken in the light of that assumption.
What one would like to know is how the dependence of the United Kingdom and Western Europe on imports of energy could be minimised. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, reminded us that in 1913, when we reached the peak of our domestic coal production, we were exporting 95 million tons—and how we could have done with that later on! If we had kept the broad seams which, as he said, were mined first because of the relative economy of operation in the larger seams—if these had been available in the immediate post-war period, we should have been so thankful.
I hope that we are not going to make the same mistake again by exporting oil in a period of temporary surplus that we may find ourselves in during the 1980s and then regret it much less than 50 years afterwards, as we did in the case of coal. Surely, it must be a sensible assumption on which to base our policies that we are not going to face solely American, Japanese or solely Third World competition, but also—another point that has not been made—the OPEC countries themselves will have used the enormous revenues they are now deriving from the export of oil to industrialise. A substantial proportion of their domestic production will therefore be required to fuel their own industries in the 1990s, and the share of oil in world trade will be that much lower.
So I suggest that one takes Scenario I from the Department's R and D document which is entitled Low Growth. I should like to put that to the noble Lord the Minister, although I do not expect him

1387
to answer the point immediately. It provides for 2 per cent. per annum growth in GDP until the early 1990s, declining to 1 per cent. by the year 2000. Then it goes on for the next 25 years at half of 1 per cent.; and I suggest that from the turn of the century onwards we should have to think in terms of zero growth. I would suggest that we build into that the alternative energy strategy from Scenario 2; that is to say, we maximise the contribution which could be expected from the sources mentioned already, such as wind, waves and tidal power; and we also build in the estimates of conservation from Scenario 3, which is the high energy cost scenario. These are matters of policy, and I would disagree with the assumption made in the document that if we have depressed economic conditions with low growth, there is not the incentive to spend money on conservation. I would say that was not really a political decision, and that if we are looking at the longterm, as the document does, then conservation would be equally necessary in any circumstances that you like to imagine.
That in fact gives us, I think, a very small nuclear component. I do not agree with the suggestion made, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we need to make a decision on the next type of reactor in the near future. That is a very controversial decision. I would agree with the noble Lords, Lord Bowden and Lord Ritchie-Calder—who both referred to the dangers of plutonium—that the public are not satisfied on this matter. I think the Secretary of State himself would agree that there is need for further discussion before any decision is made. I would endorse their proposition that we should look carefully at the thorium cycle, though that is not without its problems and, in particular, no one has yet built a plant for re-processing spent thorium fuel and extracting Uranium 233 from it. The Gulf Oil Company began to do this in the United States but I believe have abandoned their efforts. There are severe engineering problems in making that cycle work.
In conclusion, I think we have to recognise that energy demand is equally to be determined by Government policy as are questions of supply and that the kind of "technological fix" approach,
1388
of which we have heard much this afternoon, is not going to get us out of the wood. We can examine all the alternatives that have been proposed: the use of Syncrude, the barrages, solar, biochemical, Drax, the thorium fuel reactors, external combustion engines, and even, if you like, the breeder. When you have done all these things, you will still find that the simple laws of arithmetic prevent growth from being indefinite and that sooner or later you will come up against constraints. The adjustments to a steady State economy will be that much more painful the longer it is delayed. So, although I do not hope to persuade anyone to adopt this as a matter of policy, I would at least hope that as a result of my plea to the Minister the scenario for zero growth by the year 2000 should be examined.
7.55 p.m.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for opening this debate today on energy, the very important problem facing this country, and to congratulate him on a very able speech. Also, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lauderdale on a very good speech on the EEC aspect of energy. I wish to address your Lordships for only a very short time tonight, and the main point I wish to make concerns the possibility of further large-scale electrification of our railways in the next 10 or 20 years, which I do not think has been mentioned so far today. That would save a considerable quantity of oil which is now being used by the railways on their diesel engines. As we well know, oil from our own resources will be getting scarce in the late '90s. My only excuse for speaking in this very important debate today is that I was a director of an electric power company for a number of years before nationalisation, and I have some knowledge of the industry. Also, I have been keenly interested in railway development, as my noble ancestor, the first Lord Wolverton, was the first chairman of the old London and North-Western Railway, and he took his title from the town in Buckinghamshire where the railway works were. British Rail still have a very large works there.
I asked British Rail yesterday if they could give me some approximate figures of the cost of electrification of the highly

1389
successful Euston to Glasgow line, with branches to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. As your Lordships know, it was opened in sections, and this great scheme took approximately 13 years to complete, at a cost then of £190 million. I fully realise it was a very large investment, but it has been well worth while. I should like to see an urgent study made, if possible, of the possibility, if the economic position of the country improves, to electrify the line from Kings Cross to York, Newcastle and Edinburgh in the next 10 or 12 years. From my studies, aided by the kind assistance of the generating board, there seems to be plenty of power available from modern stations using coal in Nottingham, Yorkshire, Durham and South-East Scotland.
I should like to quote one or two figures to justify my statement. The generating board now have eight new stations being built, which should be completed in the next five years—some of them, I am told, before—with a total capacity of 13,360 megawatts. There are also four atomic stations being built, three oil and one pump storage, and it takes approximately seven years to build these great stations. During the last six years the generating board have brought into production 16,000 megawatts of new plant when expectation of economic growth was higher. The demand for electricity during that period has grown by only about 2,000 megawatts. So I think there should be plenty of power available in the next few years, but of course we may not have the oil and the coal to run those stations. I should also like to say at this point—these are the latest figures given to me by the generating board—that 75 per cent. of electricity in this country is generated by coal, 11 per cent. by oil, 11 per cent. by atomic energy and 3 per cent. by hydro and gas turbines. So coal is still king for electricity generation in this country.
In conclusion, I should like to quote one short paragraph from an address given by Mr. Ray Buckton, General Secretary of ASLEF, last January to the Metropolitan section of the Chartered Institute of Transport. He said:
"Of all the modes of transport, railways could be equipped to make the best use of electricity. Indeed, it is the ideal fuel. For the nation's prosperity, our future transport policy must be centred around this product of so many fuels. Money must be made available for the eventual
1390
total electrification of the whole railway system, because experience has shown that lines that have been electrified provide a clean, efficient, fast and well received service. The success story of the Electric Scot is well known and, although the initial investment costs may be high, the dividend is well worth while".
In conclusion, I would say that that quotation from Mr. Ray Buckton's address makes much better the point which I have attempted to put before your Lordships, that further electrification of the railways would save fuel in the future. I hope that this will take place.
8.1 p.m.
Lord TEDDER: My Lords, the hour is late and I will endeavour to be brief. But, first, I must join with other noble Lords in expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for the initiation of this debate at the present time. At long last, the public and our political masters are beginning to realise the seriousness of the present situation.
It was just before Christmas that we debated nuclear power in the light of the Flowers Report. Much of our discussion dealt with problems concerned with safety and the environment, but the underlying need for alternative sources of power was appreciated by almost every speaker. Since then, President Carter has started his campaign to conserve fuel. Whether or not he is successful in persuading his countrymen to abandon their large cars is doubtful, but he has done more than almost anyone else to bring the problem to the world's attention. There have been many suggestions as to how we should meet the energy crisis, and many in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Some of them are ingenious; some are fanciful.
As distinct from important schemes to utilise the energy supplies that we have with the minimum waste, there are only two long-term sources of energy—the sun, from which all fossil fuels are derived, and nuclear power. Of these alternatives, I am afraid that I do not share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, in nuclear power. The difficulties remain enormous, and the waste problems are not simple to solve. On the other hand, solar energy is converting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into potential fuels all the time. Every green plant is a demonstration that solar energy can be used to make fuels.

1391
A most obvious potential photochemical process is the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can be burned as a fuel, or the two gases together can be used in a fuel cell to drive the electric car of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. There are many alternative potential photochemical processes, a most attractive one being the conversion of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water into methanol and oxygen. Methanol would be burned as a fuel regenerating carbon dioxide.
The importance of these processes is that they return to the environment exactly the same species as are removed in their synthesis. A second important point is that they provide a fuel which can be used to power motor cars and aeroplanes, as well as power stations. I do not wish to belittle the use of wind, waves or tides, but I do not consider that these intermittent sources can ever be as completely satisfactory as a permanent alternative to fossil fuel. So long as the energy from the sun remains constant, photosynthesis will be possible. If solar energy varies greatly, no amount of research will solve our problems.
As well as being Her Majesty's Jubilee Year, this is also the centenary year of the Royal Institute of Chemistry and, if I may, I should like very briefly to sing the praise of chemists. One of their first achievements was in the field of dyestuffs. Originally, almost all dyes and colouring matters came from natural sources. Now they are almost all synthetic, and are of very much better quality. Intensive farming led to a depletion of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil. The crop yields are now far higher than they were before synthetic chemicals were employed. When there was insufficient fat for soap, synthetic detergents were developed; when increasing affluence led to an impossibly large demand for silk, nylon was developed. One could go on and on with other examples.
The important point is simply that, if there is a natural product, chemists can make a synthetic one. The synthetic product may be the same as the natural one; often it is better. Similarly, if there is a natural process, chemists can develop a synthetic one. The photochemical
1392
production of fuel is not a wild speculation, but a certainty. At present much of our oil comes from Arabia; in the future, it will continue to come from the arid deserts of the world, for in the deserts the absence of cloud cover makes solar photochemical synthesis on a large scale practical. We will need all the land we can cultivate for food production. It is particularly fortunate that land which is useless for farming should be the most suitable for photosynthesis.
We do not have much time, my Lords! Although I am certain that we can, and will, achieve solar synthesis of fuel, its development may prove very difficult. All the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, emphasised during the debate on the Flowers Report, we are using up our stocks of hydrocarbons on which we depend for our nylon, our synthetic detergents and so many of our other 20th century products. Although the photochemical production of fuels using solar energy will, I believe, have reached a practical scale by the turn of the century, it will, I am sure, take longer to match nature in the production of hydrocarbons. After all, nature takes several million years and we do not have that amount of time. So we must conserve our oil as the raw material for chemical synthesis, and get our energy by the combustion of a fuel which we can replace as fast as we use it.
In the debate on the Flowers Report, I gave some brief figures of the scale of the undertaking and showed that it was a practical possibility. I will not repeat those now. I will, however, reiterate that, while I am not advocating massive sums for solar photochemical research, I advocate most urgently that some further provision is made for research into the use of solar energy for the photosynthesis of fuel. During the debate on the Flowers Report, I drew attention to the enormous sum of £80 million spent annually on nuclear fusion research, compared with the sum of less than £500,000 spent on all other sources of energy, of which solar energy is only one. I repeat that I am against spending massive sums, but I am sure that some additional money should be allocated for photochemical research. I do not believe in a single panacea and, like other noble Lords, I do not believe that we should put all our eggs in one basket. At present, we have coal, oil, gas, water and wind. In future, our supplies

1393
of many of these will be dwindling, but we will also have nuclear energy and, I hope, tides and photochemical synthesis of fuel.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, emphasised at the beginning of this debate, let us all remember that this is an international problem which will have to be solved by international collaboration. I do not think that we should regard North Sea oil as Scotland's oil, or indeed as Britain's oil, but we should treat it as part of the world's dwindling supplies of hydrocarbon. Undoubtedly, the first task is to control population growth. No technology can hope to cope with the exponential growth of population. Even when this is controlled, food and energy for a static population will still be critical. We can solve these problems only on a world basis and, as I have indicated, I anticipate that fuel will come from the great deserts of the world. But our science and our technology must play their part in its development.
There is much for us to do and little time to do it. However, now that everyone is aware of the problem I am sure we shall succeed in overcoming it. At one time I saw in the dwindling supplies of oil the seeds of the ultimate nuclear holocaust as the super Powers struggled for the diminishing supplies. I believe that this danger remains but, thanks to the wide awareness of the problem, it has become less critical. We can, and I am confident that we shall, solve the problem of fuel production, but the funding of the necessary research and development must not be pushed too far down the list of priorities.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, sits down, may I ask him whether he is prepared to expand a little on his view that chemists can make synthetically anything that occurs naturally? The noble Lord may not have noticed that one of the flippant phrases I used related to the photosynthetic processes he has spoken about; namely, the production of electrical current without dynamos. I was referring to the occurrence of natural substances; namely, minerals. One of them is hemimorphite which emits electricity by a slight rise of temperature. In the context of his speech, upon which I congratulate him because I think nobody has put before the House
1394
so eruditely as he, his plea for research money to be spent upon the fundamentals of photosynthesis, which is the most subtle of sources but which yet could be the most lucrative, does the noble Lord agree that we should devote more research money to the synthetic production of silicates which can emit electricity?
Lord TEDDER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Of course, this is another way of using solar power, and obviously it is equally important. I did not mention it, for this reason. Although chemists can make a pure silicone and get it with the correct deformities in it so that it will work efficiently, I feel that the production of fuel which can be burned in aeroplanes and cars is a more immediate priority.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, first may I apologise to the House for my name not appearing on the list of speakers. I thought I had put it down, but it seems I did not. I shall be extremely brief. The first part of my speech re-emphasises a number of points which other noble Lords have made. If, however, I stick to what I intended to say I think it will take less time than if I refer to each speaker by name and say how much I agree with him. I am, in broad terms, taking a worldwide rather than a purely national point of view.
Despite the praiseworthy initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in sponsoring this debate, I am sorry that again it should be necessary to discuss this subject in a wide context. The issues have for a long time seemed to me to be fairly clear cut. Nuclear energy from the fission process is not an ideal solution to the energy problem. Nevertheless, no alternative can meet the expected energy gap during a period of 20 years or so around the turn of the century. We should make all possible economies in the use of energy. It is sad that we still do not seem to be capable of vigorously pursuing the great potential savings possible by better heat insulation of houses and factories. However, world energy requirements are bound to rise substantially, if only because of the increased needs of the developing countries. We must urgently try to produce more acceptable means of energy generation so as not to have to rely on the nuclear fission

1395
process longer than we must. But whatever extremists may say, there is nothing else in the short term. In this context I am not optimistic about what coal can do even in England, let alone on a world basis. The really pertinent question is the extent to which breeder reactors should be used. In the remainder of my speech, which will not take very long, I am going to put forward a few thoughts about this.
I am glad that the accent on the disadvantages of nuclear reactors seems to have moved away from the reasonably acceptable dangers of possible "incursion" and the disposal of nuclear wastes to the much more disturbing possibility of nuclear blackmail. Whatever we can do now in terms of practical politics, nuclear blackmail will occur some time in the future, simply because we cannot prevent the smaller nations acquiring some nuclear capability. India, and undoubtedly Israel, have atom bombs, and other nations will do so. The question, therefore, is not whether they or anarchist groups do so, but the extent and the scale on which the threat develops. Sooner or later we shall have to face this, with the lives of perhaps even 10,000 people at stake. My hope is that, as in the last war, we shall be able to do so. Judging from the Western world's initial reactions to hijacks, I cannot help wondering.
If noble Lords seriously believe that the future of developing nations and world humanity are important, I wonder whether morally we can, in effect, deny their energy requirements by curbing the Western development of nuclear reactors and, maybe, the breeder reactor. To see the problem in perspective, let us remember some of the World Health Organisation statistics. I have not been able to check them against the latest figures, but the ones I want to quote are roughly as follows: 12 million people suffering from preventable blindness; 5 million suffering from leprosy; one-quarter of the world's population suffering from serious malnutrition, affecting the future intellectual and physical capability of their children. I therefore ask the question, which is not rhetorical, are we morally right in denying developing countries the energy they need in the future, simply because we, or our populace, are frightened by the risks involved? Have we too great a regard for
1396
our own skins and the importance of human life in our Western society? In part I think that we have, but I leave this as an entirely open question, particularly to organisations such as the Friends of the Earth, who present a rather extremist point of view on this issue.
I have raised that point because although it has not been stressed in today's debate, there has been very strong reaction from the public to the dangers which may occur. I give this thought to noble Lords: that whereas we should do everything we can to lessen the dangers and not press ahead, regardless, with a nuclear programme, we must nevertheless go forward with such a programme and, sooner or later, accept the risks which I have outlined.
8.19 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the debate so far has been a very wide one and I think it has been deliberately so arranged by its initiators. This breadth reflects the host of matters affecting everyday life which are involved. We have been greatly assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in the way in which they introduced the subject. I shall limit myself to three or four main points and after such a long debate I shall be even briefer than I usually aim to be. I must again first declare an interest as I act as a consultant to the oil industry.
The first proposition I should like to put to your Lordships is that in energy policy the United Kingdom and the EEC should be giving more time, attention and higher priority to the subjects we have been discussing. The reports before us all agree that there will be an energy shortage after 1990 in Europe and in the industrial countries as a whole unless decisions are taken to forestall that shortage. When so many interests are involved and when there are so many considerations to be taken into account and so much consultation is necessary there is a great danger that decisions tend to be postponed. In the meantime the situation never ceases to change and there is a temptation to drift. Of course, final decisions on some of the matters discussed today are not immediately necessary but work should be authorised, keeping the options open. What is needed is the adoption of flexible

1397
policies with continuing co-ordination. These policies should be made known to all concerned and the public encouraged to co-operate.
My second proposition is that British Governments over the next few years have vital decisions to take on nuclear energy and we shall need to take those decisions and cannot dismiss nuclear energy as an unnecessary part of our programme, but I shall come to that later.
On present energy uses and conservation, in Britain the Government appear to be waiting still for the results of the public debate to which the Secretary of State for Energy has referred. In the United States of America President Carter has put some definite proposals and in that way has initiated a public debate, because some of them impinge closely on everyday life, particularly the Americans' large automobiles. But I submit that guidance certainly is needed by the public since, unless one is an expert—and I certainly am not—one can be blinded, or bored, by the technicalities. There are two reasons why I believe that high priority should be given to energy policy: the first is that it cannot and should not be separated from economic and other policies and, secondly, it so closely affects the life of the citizen.
Perhaps I may give two examples. First, on nuclear policy, as several speakers in the debate have indicated, including the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, we find this raises defence questions of a most serious nature and the dangers which could ensue if material of a nuclear nature got into the wrong hands. Then on conservation, and especially on the conservation of oil products, this affects the use of the motor car and it affects taxation; it affects taxation on domestic uses in the household as well as in transport, and as I mentioned just now this is being felt particularly by the American public.
To turn to the reports that are before us relating to the EEC, the Select Committee on coal has drawn attention to what it has described as the progressive deterioration in recent years of that industry. A great deal of the EEC's coal is here in this country and we know that in this industry investment and effect are expensive and they take time, but coal must surely
1398
remain an essential part of our electricity supply in this country for a long time to come. I ask the noble Lord if he can give us the view of the Government on the EEC's reflection upon the coal industry within the EEC, and I hope he will be able to give us a more optimistic view where this country is concerned, if not this evening then in some other way. It is clear that within the EEC we are having to buy more coal from outside the EEC than had been foreseen, and that is worrying.
To turn to oil and gas, until about 1980 we in Britain—the largest producing country, as we shall be—should be trying to win as much as we can from the sea bed. I understand it is Government policy that we should go as fast as we can until 1980. When we reach self-sufficiency in petroleum we intend as a country to bring in a depletion policy, and that policy of course would depend upon the circumstances as regards ourselves and the EEC and the price of oil in the world at the time. But I should like to draw attention to the uses of offshore oil and gas. In particular, gas is probably more valuable as feedstock for industry rather than as fuel, and to a great extent petroleum is also. Once it has been burnt it has been destroyed and it is more important as a raw material for many chemical products, fertilisers and other goods, where it can be recycled and not wasted.
I should like to draw attention to one of the items in President Carter's energy saving programme which shows how seriously the Americans are considering this. That item is this:
"Prohibit industry and utilities from burning petroleum or gas in new boilers".
That is a drastic measure if it is to be carried out, but it underlines the more important uses which gas and oil have for industry rather than as a fuel.
While I am speaking of petroleum, I should like to draw attention to the EEC's comments on refinery capacity. Within the EEC it appears that there are 140 million tonnes of surplus capacity and we know that in 1976 (last year) in Britain only 67 per cent. of capacity in this country was used. The Commission are therefore proposing a standstill on new refineries. Without going into it in detail, this poses problems. Other things being equal, we would naturally wish to

1399
refine a large proportion of the oil coming from our own sector of the North Sea. In that way we add value to that product, but other producer-countries in various parts of the world are also trying to do the same thing and are building refineries. Given the over-capacity that exists, here is a subject which really requires co-ordination within the EEC, and in the world as a whole, in order to avoid wasted investment. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, spoke of the higher costs which were inevitable in future in the production of energy, and to have to go in for costs in over-capacity which could be avoided is something that we should try to ensure is sorted out.
By the early 1980s we in Britain shall be the only industrial country in the Western world which is self-sufficient in energy. I suggest that is not a pretext for opting out of this co-ordination. It is all the more reason why our voice should be heard strongly in the formulation of policies as to how the various forms of energy should be used. But our oil and gas supplies are likely to last for only 30 to 40 years, although of course more offshore supplies which are not yet known may be found off the shores of other countries. So we must consider the future of nuclear energy. It is clear to me that in the 1990s, despite what can be done in using energy from the sun, which has been spoken about today, from tides, from wind and waves and perhaps other sources, we shall still need a considerable amount from nuclear sources. Here there are long lead periods. So preparation and action are needed now in order to arrive at the best arrangements in the 1990s and later.
The EEC report shows that the nuclear programme within the EEC has slowed down. This is largely due to doubts in Germany and France, for environmental reasons among others. In Britain we are facing the choice of the next generation of commercial reactors, and I understand that, in about two weeks' time, the report of the Nuclear Inspectorate is due to be received by the Government and that they have not been able to take decisions before then. I suspect it will still be a little time before decisions can be taken, because it is a very crucial matter. In the meantime the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, put are
1400
extremely germane; that is, whether the present Magnox and advanced gas cooled reactors have been working even better than expected.
But the principle issue for the future, and the time when the oil and gas supplies run out, will be whether some other form of reactor, such as the fast breeder reactor, upon which our hopes had been pinned, will be the answer, and with that come the attendant risks of the use of plutonium. All the implications of the use of plutonium must be widely understood before a decision is taken. That was the recommendation of the Royal Commission chaired by Sir Brian Flowers. That report has already been debated by your Lordships; I am just reminding you of what the Commission said. The Commission did not reject the fast breeder reactor and what they termed the "plutonium economy", but did point out that these implications existed.
Speaking personally, I think we must still consider the fast breeder reactor, possibly with the use of thorium, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said. It has apparently become much more costly—so the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, said—than had previously been expected. There may be other doubts about it. But we are still far ahead of the United States in the fast breeder reactor. The United States do not themselves need it. They have indigenous uranium and they can use other types of reactor. But uranium could become scarce elsewhere, and the United Kingdom and other countries are likely to need it. So that, although some speakers apparently seem already to have decided that the fast breeder reactor must be ruled out, I hope that it will still be considered among other options for the major nuclear decisions that have to be taken before the end of the century.
On 7th April, President Carter referred to this subject. He referred to fast breeder reactors and the reprocessing of plutonium, and made it clear that the United States' policy was now to go in another direction. He also expressed concern about non-proliferation; that is, that it should be continued. The problem of plutonium and other dangerous materials getting into the wrong hands and being used for blackmail is one which already exists, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to that. But

1401
no one should misconstrue the United States' official attitude. They are not frowning on our reprocessing or on that of other countries. They know that it will be needed. The key words of President Carter on this are:
"They feel that our unilateral action in renouncing the reprocessing of spent fuels to produce plutonium might imply that we prohibit them or criticise them severely because of their own need for reprocessing. This is not the case. They have a perfect right to go ahead and continue with their own reprocessing efforts. But we hope that they will join with us in eliminating in the future additional countries that might have had this capability".
We in Britain should respond to that. I do not regard this as an objection to reprocessing or the use of plutonium. I regard this as a challenge. This is something which we should be able to safeguard against in working out our own future policy. The long-term implications are so great for the future and for the United Kingdom—for the United Kingdom perhaps as much as for any other country in the world—that energy policy, including the methods of saving it, should be given a very high priority, and I believe a higher priority than it appears to be receiving in this country today.
8.36 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, first may I say what a fine debate we have had today. I feel very humble participating in it. We have had some really distinguished contributions from some very distinguished scientists, and indeed from other noble Lords who are engineers and who know the industry; but, apart from that, even from people who say that they are not specialists. I was thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and how right he was to remind us about electrification of our railways. I thought his speech was very refreshing, and I agree with him so much.
I should like to begin by congratulating the two noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Lauderdale, on the timeliness of the Motions before the House. By taking them together we have had this afternoon a valuable debate, till nearly nine o'clock, surveying the whole field of United Kingdom energy policy, its place in the European Economic Community context and the Community's own developing energy policy itself. I say timely, because in recent months the publication of a
1402
series of independently conducted studies has once again focused world attention on the problem of finite oil supplies, and in particular on the prospect that, without concerted efforts to promote more efficient energy use and to develop alternative fuels, world demand for oil could, during the 1980s, put severe pressure on supplies from the producing countries.
Against this background the Government particularly welcome the proposals on energy policy which President Carter put to the United States Congress on 20th April. These are a positive step by the world's largest energy consumer and oil importer towards restraining demands on oil imports and lessening the gap between the United States domestic and world prices. Just over a fortnight ago, on 7th and 8th May, world leaders discussed energy issues at the Downing Street Summit and pledged themselves to further efforts to conserve energy and to increase and diversify production in order to reduce dependence on imported oil.
I come now first to the noble Lord's Motion: that is, to call attention to the energy problems facing this country, and to move for Papers. To some it may sound strange to talk of problems as Britain approaches the point of net self-sufficiency in energy and the prospect that self-sufficiency will endure for at least a decade. But our wealth in energy resources, while it places us at some advantage compared with others, is little cause for complacency, and there has, rightly, been little sign of complacency in this debate. Indeed, the Government have been prodded—quite rightly—here and there on particular aspects of energy policy.
We, in this country, face the same prospect as others: supplies of world oil will come under mounting pressure, and we face the same needs to ensure an orderly transition to a fuel economy in which energy conservation and other fuels will play an increasingly important role. Our reserves of offshore oil and gas are a welcome and much needed addition to national resources. But on present estimates our own oil is likely to fall short of home requirements in the 1990s and to run down before world supplies do. These valuable resources cannot be replaced and we have to make doubly sure that we use them responsibly and make the most of the opportunity they

1403
offer to provide for the country's longer-term well-being. The Government's approach to the United Kingdom energy policy has been very much directed to ensuring that we do.
Our approach does not take the form of a precise blueprint. We have all seen, even in the post-1973 energy era, what can be the fate of blueprints. Instead, we have been working towards something perhaps less clear-cut but certainly more robust—a strategy framework within which we can operate and which we can keep under review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy over the past year and more has been engaged in a quite novel exercise. I realise that sometimes he has been criticised but no one would deny that the exercise which he is conducting is right. This exercise, in opening up the formulation of energy policy to the widest range of interest, is important. A number of noble Lords attended the National Energy Conference held last year. Before and since there has been an unprecedented flow of detailed studies from the Department of my right honourable friend—from a general survey on policies and prospects (that is, of course, the Energy Policy Review) to examinations of individual technologies. Few should now be ill-informed. The vigorous public discussion of energy matters has already done much to clarify the options open to us and the issues at stake.
The broad longer-term prospect is clear. The United Kingdom, like other countries—and this is partly a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because he asked about coal and the Community—will become increasingly dependent on a combination of coal, nuclear power, energy conservation and renewable sources. A number of noble Lords have today declared in favour of varying combinations of these. The fact is that we cannot now settle precisely the desirable energy balance of the late 1980s and the 1990s. We need to pursue all four of them if we are to have a sound basis for future decisions about meeting our energy needs. That is what the Government are doing and will continue to do.
Let me take them in turn. First, coal. Coal is our most abundant fossil fuel resource. I was so glad that the noble
1404
Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who has long experience in the coal industry, defended coal so strongly today. I think that we all agree with him. It was right that he should do so and we understand how he feels about it. We have sufficient reserves of coal technically recoverable to support production at present levels for some 300 years. Plan for Coal is reversing the long decline of the industry and establishing a firm foundation for coal's important longer-term contribution. But coal alone cannot meet all our needs. There are also environmental factors to be weighed. It may well be that some of us in Government made the wrong decisions when we sought to run down the mining industry quickly. My former constituency once had six or seven pits; now it has none, and there is only one in the county of Cumbria, at Whitehaven. Therefore, we must all watch the future carefully.
I turn next to nuclear power, which has been an important area of accumulating British skill and experience for over 20 years. The Magnox reactors have been contributing attractively-priced electricity to the grid over that period and the advanced gas cooled reactors are now coming on stream. We face important decisions about the future of our thermal reactor programme and about development of the fast reactor. As in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, the environmental, social and safety implications—particularly of a significant future reliance on fast reactors—have, as noble Lords know, been the subject of active and increasingly informed discussion. Reference was made to a debate which we had in this House.
The importance of the fast reactor is that it uses uranium, which is in finite supply, some 60 times more efficiently than thermal reactors. The United Kingdom has stocks of depleted uranium which, if used in fast reactors, would yield energy equivalent to nearly our entire technically recoverable reserves of coal. But the many questions which have been raised have to be satisfactorily resolved. The Heads of Government at the recent Summit decided in particular to establish a study group to examine nuclear non-proliferation.
I defend our entry into the nuclear field, and always have done. I believe that we now lead the world in nuclear technology and it is a great asset to this country.

1405
Therefore, let us not underestimate it. I appreciate that there are dangers, but I believe that all noble Lords accept that fact, and therefore we must have proper safety measures. The noble Lord, Lord Sherlield, who was once the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, knows much about that side of the industry and I think will agree that we have always insisted upon high standards.
Conservation, which is another important matter, can make a significant contribution towards meeting our needs. The Government programme of measures is in its third year and we are constantly developing it. Our central estimate is that savings of about 6 per cent. in primary energy consumption were achieved in 1975. There are considerably greater savings to be pursued economically at present energy prices, and the Government will do all they can to encourage them.
Of the renewable sources, we have research under way into wave power, which was mentioned by many of my noble friends, solar energy and geothermal energy, and we have announced expenditure totalling some £10 million. The maximum technically obtainable contribution from renewable sources in the United Kingdom by the year 2000 is probably only about 40 million tons of coal equivalent, and we are trying to establish how far their development on that time-scale might be economically attractive. In the next century they could become considerably more important.
The work in hand on all four of these counts has its place in our programme. This broadly based approach is similar to that which is being followed by most other developed Western nations, although the emphasis varies with national circumstances. If there is a distinction in our case, it is that our medium-term self-sufficiency in energy and the economic benefits from North Sea oil provide a special opportunity for setting our economy and the energy sector of it on a sound longer-term basis. I can assure noble Lords that the Government intend to make the most of that opportunity and to proceed in as orderly a fashion as they can.
I now turn to the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale:
"That this House takes note of the Twenty-eighth Report of the European Communities Committee on EEC Energy Policy".
1406
First, I wish to thank the Select Committee of the House on the European Communities for their report. Members of the Sub-Committee on Energy have this time examined three general documents, none of which contains any legislative proposals. This does not, of course, mean that they are of lesser significance. On the contrary, it is only by examining the overall general position of the Community's energy policy that one can identify the important issues which need resolving, work out solutions for them and chart the course for future policy.
I believe that I am right in saying that it is about 18 months since this House debated European Economic Community Energy Policy. Some noble Lords may consider that a debate on EEC energy policy is overdue. None could protest that it has been given undue prominence in the business of this House. I am therefore grateful to the Select Committee for their work in examining these three Commission documents and their report on them which has given us the opportunity for this debate.
The Select Committee's report is, as I indicated earlier, timely in the context of world energy. I note that the Select Committee's report has referred to the OECD's report The World Energy Outlook, which I think the noble Lord speaking for the Liberal Party mentioned. The OECD's report rightly stresses the need for Government to instil an energy conservation conscientiousness in consumers and to promote the more efficient allocation of energy resources. It also gives a timely reminder of the long lead times involved in bringing on-stream new or alternative sources of energy.
Since the Commission's document R/2275/76 on Community energy policy, which was issued in October of last year, and which, as the Select Committee's report points out, drew the Council's attention to Member States' insufficient progress towards self-sufficiency in energy, a follow-on document has been issued, that is, R/477/77, dated 25th February this year. This drew the Council's attention to the worsening of the Community's energy situation and stressed the need for continuing co-operation within the Community (and indeed wider co-operation outside) to meet the difficulties of reconciling energy supply with demand.

1407
The Select Committee's report refers to different and differing figures of energy demand in 1985, and the growth rates of energy demand. But, whichever estimates and analyses are used, and however reliable or unreliable they may be, one clear theme is common to them all; namely, that even with moderate rates of energy demand growth, there is no certainly about how the Community will be able to meet all its energy requirements after the 1980s. Moreover, the Community will be competing for its share of world resources at a time when oil production will be declining and the demands of the less developed countries increasing.
To counter the apparent poor prospects for economic growth without significantly increasing oil imports, the Commission advocate, in document R/477/77, the increased use and economic home production of coal, action on nuclear energy, and an increased programme on new forms of energy. At the 29th March Energy Council, Ministers held a very useful and constructive discussion on the political aspects of the Community's energy situation. They emphasised the importance of doing everything possible to reduce dependence on imported oil and to save energy.
It was agreed that coal had an important part to play and that nuclear power should make a large contribution, provided that this was accepted by the public and that problems such as security and the disposal of waste would be overcome and the solutions accepted. It is probable that Ministers will have a fuller discussion on nuclear matters at the Energy Council planned for 14th June.
The penultimate sentence of the Select Committee's report states that it would be unwise for the United Kingdom to regard its coming self-sufficiency in energy as guaranteeing it immunity from the adverse effects of shortages elsewhere. As noble Lords will have gathered, I fully endorse that view. We fully support the Community objective of reducing dependence on external energy supplies. The United Kingdom has made a positive contribution to this international co-operation on energy conservation in the EEC and also in the International Energy Agency (IEA), and will continue to do so.
1408
The efficient use of energy and the elimination of waste are essential twin allies to the success of a national and international energy policy. But even with intensive conservation efforts and a reduced energy demand growth, the Community would still remain dependent upon external supplies of oil. It is therefore important that the Community's indigenous resources should be increased. The United Kingdom is, of course, making a good contribution towards this with its North Sea oil and gas production. Our coal mines too are playing an important part, and their contribution should become increasingly significant as we near the end of the century and our oil resources diminish.
The Commission's document R/3128/76 drew the Council's attention to the deteriorating position of the Community's coal industry. The Select Committee underlined this in their report and also referred to the Commission's concern about the decline in Community output, the rise in imports and the rise in stocks of coal. The Committee intend to examine further the situation in the coal industry. But since document R/3128/76 was issued, the Commission has issued further documents on the coal industry which contain some constructive proposals of assistance. For example, document R/478/77 of 25th February points to the effect which imports from third countries are having on Community coal, and suggests that if the trend continues productive capacity could be reduced owing to uncertainty about the future. It outlines ways of gathering full information about third country imports rapidly and effectively so that the situation can be kept under constant review and action taken, if necessary.
At the 29th March Energy Council Ministers agreed that arrangements should be made by each Member State for the surveillance of imports of coal from non-member countries. The Commission's proposals for these arrangements have yet to be discussed in detail, but we hope that all countries will be able to accept the small changes proposed by the Commission to establish an effective monitoring system.
The Select Committee's report refers to a second adverse development, namely, the rise in stocks of coal. The Commission's document R/686/77 of 22nd March proposes regulations for

1409
Community support towards the cost of stocking coal and coke. About one-third of the cost of excess stock would be met. This would mean, in practice, about one-third of stocks in excess of one month's production, up to a limit of 20 million tonnes for the Community as a whole. The proposal is under examination by experts in the Community and it may come up for discussion at the June Energy Council. The opinion of the European Assembly will be required, however, before any Council decision can be reached. The Community recognise that increasing attention will need to be given to the problems associated with the development of nuclear energy to enable it to make its contribution towards meeting energy requirements on a sufficient scale.
I share the Select Committee's concern, as expressed in their report, about the Community's energy prospects in the medium and long term. There is, however, a growing realisation in the Community of the need to overcome the Community's energy problems before they become insoluble. Member States recognise and accept the importance and need for collective action, whether this be individual Member States adopting different measures towards the same end, or joint implementation of uniform policies.
My Lords, may I say that I have carefully noted questions. The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, referred to "gas guzzlers". I was not quite sure what they were. It was the first time that I had heard of the phrase, but I understand that United Kingdom petrol prices are considerably above price levels in the United States and there is already considerable incentive here to use smaller and more economic cars. As noble Lords know, the very large models which are widespread in the United States of America have never been very popular here. I think the Prime Minister raised the question of the implications of United Kingdom exports to the United States at the time of President Carter's statement, and we are keeping a close watch on developments in this field.
I must say something about JET, having been asked about it. I have details of a whole lot of other questions I have been asked and, having spoken already for nearly 25 minutes, I am anxious to conclude; I want to set a good example.
1410
We had hoped that a decision on a site for JET would have been taken at the Research Council meeting on 29th March last. As noble Lords are aware, the choice was between Culham and Garching in Germany, but disagreement over the organisation of the project prevented a final decision being arrived at. It is hoped to reach agreement on a site, and of course on the organisation, at the next Research Council meeting, the date of which has not yet been fixed. The Government remain convinced that Culham is the best site for it and are doing their best to bring the project to this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, asked about the payment of costs in respect of oil pollution. In a good reply to a Question in the House the other day, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi mentioned that responsibility for clean up costs rested with the operator. That is the situation and my noble friend's Answer appears in Hansard in full, details of which I will give the noble Lord.
I wish to bring my remarks to a conclusion in the way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, finished his short and concise speech, which was a very moral appeal. He said, in effect, "Let us watch out. After all, we will spend vast sums of money on energy, nuclear power and so on. Let us remember that we are living in a world in which millions of people are dying from malnutrition, poverty, starvation, and disease". We must always bear that in mind. That is why I have always believed agriculture and food supplies to be so important, and that was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. Food is important and that is why I have always supported FAO, one of the great agencies of the United Nations, and, linking with it, we have UNESCO, a body which fights against illiteracy. In the end, we can increase our standard of living only by the development of energy, by more production and by our manufacturing industry, which ticks because of energy supplies. While we are defending energy today, we are, therefore, being very moral as well.
9.3 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, I have undertaken to apologise because he has had to leave

1411
for Brussels, where I have no doubt that energy policy will be one of the matters he is discussing. I undertook on his behalf to make a few comments in conclusion.
I know that he would wish, and certainly I would wish, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I also know that Lord Wynne-Jones and all noble Lords would like particularly to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for giving such a comprehensive reply, if a generalised one. As is commonly the case on what one might describe as an omnibus occasion such as this, many questions have been flung at the noble Lord, probably, as is usually the case, without warning. If he writes, as is commonly the case, to noble Lords who put questions, perhaps other noble Lords who took part in the debate might be allowed to have copies of those letters, or alternatively an arrangement might be made to table Questions for Written Answer after the Recess.
As many questions have been asked which are of interest to the House as a whole, perhaps the Leader of the House would help us in that way. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked about the cross-Channel power link and the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, raised the question of the barrage scheme. I asked about the Government stance on the minimum support price at the forthcoming Energy Council and many other questions have been put, all of which will be of general interest to the House.
Having said that, and having received a sympathetic nod from the Leader of the House, it is fair to say that this has been a most instructive, informative and enjoyable debate. The comprehensive answers we have had and the particular answers we are promised will have served the purpose of the debate and, in the light of those two aspects, I wish, on behalf of Lord Wynne-Jones, to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EEC ENERGY POLICY: 28th ECC REPORT
9.5 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Twenty-eighth Report of the European Communities Committee on EEC Energy
1412
Policy. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Twenty-eighth Report of the European Communities Committee on EEC Energy Policy.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  OXFUIRD PEERAGE CASE
  OXFUIRD PEERAGE CASE
  AMPTHILL PEERAGE CASE
  AMPTHILL PEERAGE CASE
  NUCLEAR POWER: R & D AND SALES
  NUCLEAR POWER: R & D AND SALES
  WESTMINSTER HALL: BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS
  WESTMINSTER HALL: BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS
  JOHN ISLIP STREET PLANE TREES
  JOHN ISLIP STREET PLANE TREES
  SEXUAL OFFENCES: AGE OF CONSENT
  SEXUAL OFFENCES: AGE OF CONSENT
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: UNITED KINGDOM PROJECTS
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: UNITED KINGDOM PROJECTS