asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the total United Kingdom investment currently being undertaken in the exploitation of oil in the North Sea; and what is the anticipated rate of return on this investment assuming the present international price of oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the full development cost of North Sea oil.

It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the full development cost for North Sea oil. That will depend upon a variety of unknown factors, including the number and magnitude of new commercial developments and of future finds. The United Kingdom's offshore oilfields vary a good deal and the rates of return on investment in those now under development also vary. There is no average or typical figure that would not be misleading.

In view of the escalation in the cost of developing the North Sea and the present slippage in the international price of oil, with the price of Iranian oil to be reduced by 9·5 cents per barrel, is my hon. Friend satisfied that investment in marginal oilfields will be viable? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the British consumer will not have to pay a protected higher price in order to justify that investment?

Cost escalation is a serious matter. The Department of Energy has put in hand a study of North Sea energy cost escalation and we expect to report the findings to the House shortly. We are concerned about marginal fields. It is in the national interest that they be developed. That is why safeguard provisions were put in the Oil Taxation Act, and some in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act, which can be used to assist marginal fields. The development of our oil resources will be important to the country and will guarantee the security of a supply of oil which we expect to sell at a proper market price.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Iranians indicates a further step in the slide of oil prices, which shows that it is difficult to repeal the law of supply and demand? Is it not therefore all the more important that we get a minimum price guarantee in the Common Market as the Prime Minister has said that we have such an agreement? What is holding up that agreement?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Government have supported the concept of a minimum selling price. That matter is under discussion both in the context of an international energy agreement and within the EEC. It is impossible to predict the future of oil prices and it behoves everyone to treat the matter with caution.

In view of that reply, what account is being taken of such estimates as are available in preparing advice by the Department of Energy to the Foreign Secretary in seeking to formulate our attitude towards the EEC energy policy?

There is constant consultation between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Both Departments have worked very closely for the representation of British interests in the EEC, the IEA and other international bodies.

I return to the subject of United Kingdom investment in oil. Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Scottish National Party has said that, in the unlikely event of its being in a position to fulfil its promise to grant autonomy to Shetland, it will use international law to ensure that neither the bulk nor, indeed, any of the oil goes to the Shetland Isles? This view was put in the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).

I noticed that speech and I was surprised by the attitude of the Scottish National Party. One notices a general retreat by the Scottish National Party on the subject of oil, no doubt because the Shetland Isles have made it crystal clear that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and two-thirds of North Sea oil is located off the coast of Shetland.

Far from my party retreating on the subject of oil, and bearing in mind that the World Bank forecasts an increase in the price of oil over the next decade, has the hon. Gentleman read the report by Alec Kemp of the Department of Political Economy at Aberdeen University, which was featured on BBC television last week, suggesting that a very high rate of return will be offered to oil companies in the existing oilfields at existing prices? Will the hon. Gentleman refer the whole question of the energy taxation structure to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a full review?

I am aware of that article. There are many predictions, assumptions and forecasts about what will happen to oil prices and many views about what should be the level of taxation. The Government's attitude has been to strike a fair balance between achieving a good return to the nation and making North Sea oil operations in the private sector profitable and on-going. We believe that the situation that we have reached, in which we expect about 70 per cent. of the profits to return to the nation, reflects adequately our determination to get a fair return for the nation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many meetings there have been involving the Department of Energy, the BNOC, and the oil companies to discuss BNOC's participation in the development of North Sea oil; and how many firm agreements have been concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a further statement on the progress towards participation agreements between the BNOC and the oil companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the progress of Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to 51 per cent. participation in North Sea oil.

Over 150 meetings have been held with representatives of the 36 companies currently developing the 14 commercial oilfields. Since their appointment the Chairman and members of BNOC have been kept in touch with the negotiations. The first detailed agreements should be signed in the next few weeks. Discussions with other companies are progressing satisfactorily.

Will the Minister of State now tell us the other side of the coin? How many major oil companies—following Exxon's lead—will take the Government at their word, that participation is voluntary, and will not volunteer? Will he further confirm to the House that the Government will not use the existence of either loans or guarantees to Burmah to force Burmah into selling any of its stake in the Thistle field?

I believe that the Government will be able to reach satisfactory agreements with the oil companies concerned in the participation negotiations. I have no reason to doubt that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, discussions are proceeding with Burmah to purchase all or part of the assets which Burmah holds in the North Sea. As discussions are continuing, I do not think that I should say anything further at this stage.

Will the Minister indicate what will happen to those companies which are prepared to stand out against the Government on this issue? Will he recollect that this arrangement is voluntary and that there are existing contracts which he is seeking to negate? Will he indicate whether he will be returning to the House for a parliamentary process to nationalise the rights of those companies?

The Government are proceeding with voluntary negotiations with these companies and progress is such that it leads us to think that we shall reach a satisfactory agreement with the companies concerned. I do not know why Opposition Members wish to encourage the companies not to co-operate, because it is in the interests of the companies and this country that they should co-operate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that coal will continue to remain competitive against other fuels in 1976.

Yes, Sir. I expect coal to retain its general competitive position this year.

Does the Minister agree with me that the ban on overtime by the NUM is likely to make coal less competitive this year? Given that fact, what representations has he or his right hon. Friend made to the leaders of the NUM on this particular matter?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no threat to coal supplies at present. If the hon. Gentleman reflects, I think that he will agree that it would not be prudent to deal with this problem today. After all, eventually it will have to be dealt with by the unions.

With his long mining experience, does my hon. Friend appreciate that one of the reasons why the National Coal Board is able to be competitive is that among its many collieries it has some which are profitable, such as Langwith Colliery, which has made about £1 million during the last 22 months of its operations? Is not this a question of seeing not NUM leaders but the National Coal Board in order to get the Board to change its mind? It is the Board which has created this problem—people such as Sir Derek Ezra, people whose wages are paid by those who sent us here.

If my hon. Friend reflects, he will realise that it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who arranged a meeting between the representatives of the NUM, the Chairman of the NCB and the Department of Energy. I repeat that this is a matter for the unions to resolve. There is no threat to coal supplies at present.

Does the Minister agree, however, that over the last two years the coal industry has enjoyed a unique opportunity in relation to its competitive position as a result of the rise in oil prices? With the increases in coal prices now announced, this headroom is in danger of disappearing. Does the Minister further agree that this is the time for everyone in the industry to recognise that high output and productivity are what the industry needs, because they will provide an opportunity not only for selling to major customers here but for developing the export trade?

I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is to some extent a compliment to the Department of Energy, to the extent that he has acknowledged that the policies of the present Government and the Department of Energy have given a greater stability and opportunity to the mining industry over the last two years than the industry has had for quite a time. That is a fact.

The hon. Member mentioned opportunities for coal. It is a fact that coal is cheaper than oil and that in the present financial climate this affords great advantages and great opportunities to the miners and the mining industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the national executive of the NUM could bring in an overtime ban only on a national matter? The reason that Langwith Colliery has been brought into this controversy is the 30 million tons of coal that are stocked. Will my hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, put increased pressure on the CEGB to burn more coal?

While not trying to preempt other Questions on the Order Paper, I think that within the national system there is an opportunity to burn substantial quantities of coal. I have made it clear whenever I have visited coalfields that I do not regard stocks of coal as a threat to the stability of the mining industry. I have said that coal on the ground is coal in the bank and that it will appreciate in value rather than depreciate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for worker participation in the coal mining industry.

A Government committee is currently studying the problems of industrial democracy in the nationalised industries and any formal changes in the coal industry must await its report. There are already comprehensive arrangements for consultation at all levels within the industry and my right hon. Friend has revived, fostered and extended the pattern for joint consultations between Government, unions and Board which was begun in the coal industry examination of 1974.

Why is the hon. Gentleman so pusillanimous? Why does he not give some pits to the miners and see whether they cannot get more money through that than through this absurd shackling structure of nationalisation and union monopoly, which is holding back their wages to a very considerable extent?

The hon. Gentleman at one time occupied my present position on the Government Front Bench. He is not in any position to give lectures as to how to handle any industrial situation. As I have said, hon. Members can do a great disservice by making rather extravagant comments on the very delicate situation facing us. I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that this is a matter for the unions to resolve. He should think about the interests of the nation rather than about trying to make party political capital.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Labour Party's manifesto of February 1974, which clearly lays down that the Government intend to socialise the nationalised industries? [HON. MEMBERS: "What for?"] It means introducing worker participation. Will my hon. Friend tell his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government that the committee that has been set up must not be used as an excuse for not taking speedy action once the committee reports?

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. That com- mittee will report and it will be the Government's intention to introduce appropriate legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we have not stood still while waiting for this report. The initiatives taken on this matter by my right hon. Friend, which I have described earlier, have to some extent helped to introduce some democratisation within the industry.

If the Under-Secretary has not stood still, will he indicate whether his movement in this matter leads him to regard favourably the National Coal Board as a suitable structure for a two-tier board?

If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on that subject, I shall be happy to answer it.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has yet satisfied himself as to the most desirable and equitable course of action with regard to the disposal of the BP shares acquired by the Bank of England from the Burmah Oil Company.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) on 26th January, no decision has yet been taken on the disposal of these shares.—[Vol. 904, c. 26–7.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that BP is believed to have a better rating than have his Government in international business——

Of course.

—and that the international operations of BP are being harmed by the continuation of the Government's stake, which leads people to think, incorrectly, that the Government can control this company? Is it not time that the Government influenced the Bank of England and arranged for its share to be divested?

I have nothing to add to my previous answer. In 1914 Winston Churchill promoted a Bill which gave the Government a 51 per cent. holding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. I do not believe that the fears which the hon. Gentleman seeks to inflame are in any case real, because the experience and relationship between the Government and BP has been well understood since Mr. Churchill's Liberal days.

It is clear that the intervention of the weekend has led to hon. Members forgetting my pronouncement about supplementary questions. If hon. Members would ask one supplementary question when called, that would be a great help.

What will the Government do to meet the acute grievances of many Burmah shareholders, including many small shareholders?

The point has been dealt with on many occasions, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to what has been said. Burmah came to the Government, and the arrangement that was made was on a perfectly fair valuation basis which Burmah was free to reject or accept.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the BNOC.

I see Lord Kearton very frequently.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of BNOC the meeting held in Edinburgh last week by shop stewards from the oil platform construction sites? In view of the grave concern about the continuing lack of orders—none has been placed in Britain for about nine months—will my right hon. Friend ask the Chairman of BNOC to ensure that our 51 per cent. participation means in future a greater degree of direction of oil jobs to areas that are most in need?

I think my hon. Friend knows that both my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have seen the companies concerned, and I have seen the unions and the shop stewards about this problem, which is a serious and difficult one. I do not believe that BNOC can help in the short run, but one reason why we want a strong and powerful Corporation is to ensure that British interests are reflected over the whole range of oil policy decisions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the chairman of BNOC that the OPEC cartel is cracking fast and that if the price of oil drops to below $7 a barrel, a great deal of the investment in North Sea oil becomes uneconomic?

Before the hon. Gentleman rubs his hands at the possibility that the North Sea investment might be unsuccessful, let me tell him that he is wholly wrong. Whatever the short-term position during the slump, all the long-term forecasts are that oil prices are likely to rise. North Sea investment is now pouring in at a steady rate, and our oil policy is intended to get and will succeed in our getting a 51 per cent. position on the operating committees. This investment offers this country a substantial transformation of its prospects.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the chairman whether the chief executive of BNOC, temporary or otherwise, resides in Glasgow, in view of previous commitments?

The board of BNOC was appointed only last month. It is necessary for the members to be all round the United Kingdom. The chairman is often in London to discuss matters with me. I think the House knows that we have set up the Corporation's offices in Glasgow, but it will still have some work to do in London.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind Lord Kearton that uncertainty over what 51 per cent. actually means—whether it is equity or control—may have led to the remark in today's Financial Times by the President of the Dow Commercial Company that it did not take part in the last round of licensing because the company did not know the rules, and added that, as far as he could see, it still did not know them? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?

The hon. Gentleman has made it his business to repeat and amplify every anxiety that he can find in the daily newspapers, but the position is clear.

We introduced the petroleum revenue tax to make good an unforgivable gap in the legislation passed by the Conservative Government. We introduced the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill to provide a legal regime which allows this country to manage its oil resources. We have set up the BNOC, which is similar to what most countries outside the United States have done, and we have made it clear in the participation which we are determined to get with all the oil companies in the North Sea—[Interruption.] I hope the House will allow me to continue. We have made it clear that participation is on the basis of no better and no worse, and this is clearly understood by the companies concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to appoint more members of the British National Oil Corporation.

I intend to make further appointments in due course. Those already appointed, however, represent a well-balanced board, drawn from a wide area of expertise, and will be well able to initiate the process of establishing the BNOC as a fully integrated oil company.

I welcome the first few words of that reply, but on what possible grounds can the Government have faith in the technical competence of the Corporation as it is at present constituted?

Because of the expertise of some of the members of the Corporation—[Hon. MEMBERS: "In what?"]—particularly the expertise of the chairman in a wide range of industrial matters. The board will take care to appoint to its staff men who have high technical ability. Much of the criticism directed by members of the Opposition at the board has been totally misdirected. For instance, there are some very young members of the BNOC.

Will the Minister note that great dissatisfaction is felt in Scotland because the BNOC has already opened a London suite of offices for the convenience of the England-based chief executive? When appointing other members to the board, will he make sure that the Government's promise is honoured and that there will be full de- centralisation of decision-making to Scotland, not keeping it in London?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got over his disappointment at the fact that the present Government set up the BNOC and put it in Glasgow in the West of Scotland. I know that he and his colleagues wished it to go somewhere else, but the fact that it was sited in Glasgow was widely acceptable in the West of Scotland. There are three Scots on the board of the BNOC and they are making a signal contribution to its success. The hon. Gentleman's sniping arose from the fact that in this matter the Labour Government have done much more for Scotland than the Scottish National Party ever thought of.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many women members he has appointed to the board of the BNOC?

None so far, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will bear that point in mind when he makes future appointments.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is necessary to retain a certain number of staff in London because, however many may be moved to Glasgow, the main financial decisions will still be taken in London, and, as a result, it is in the interests of the people of Scotland that there should be a staff in London for this purpose?

Anyone who is concerned to make the BNOC a success will deploy staff wherever necessary. There will, of course, be staff in London as well as in Glasgow and any other part of the United Kingdom where it is desirable to have them. The important point is that the Government have acted to secure the national interest and, through the setting up of the Corporation, have benefited Scotland by putting the headquarters in Glasgow. The Scottish National Party has not yet become reconciled to this.

Will new appointees to the BNOC board have experience of the oil industry?

That is a factor that will certainly be taken into account. Hon. Members opposite have shown a predisposition to attack every member of the Corporation since appointment. They have ignored the wide knowledge of the oil and gas industries possessed by people like Mr. Denis Rooke, for example.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the composition of the British National Oil Corporation board and the salary structure proposed for senior executives.

The board so far consists of Lord Kearton, the full-time Chairman, Lord Balogh, a part-time deputy chairman, and 10 part-time members, two of whom are civil servants. The salary of senior executives is a matter for the board.

But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the salary structure is of prime public importance? Since the Secretary of State has rightly gone on record as deploring any pressure and arm-twisting in relationships between Secretaries of State and the chairmen of nationalised industries, will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is his expectation that the salary structure of the chief executive and his lieutenants will correspond more approximately to the going rate of the oil industry or to the going rate of other executives of nationalised industries?

My difficulty in answering that question is that I do not wish to anticipate the proper consideration of this matter which is taking place within the British National Oil Corporation itself. No doubt, the salary structure and the salaries paid to other people in the oil industry will be one of the factors which it will take into account. The BNOC was set up to run itself in these matters, and I cannot anticipate what decisions it will reach.

As the chairman and, no doubt, the civil servants are apparently to be based in London, may we be told how many executives will be based in Scotland and in England respectively?

The hon. Gentleman is following the practice of his SNP colleagues in taking every available opportunity to snipe at the British National Oil Corporation. He cannot yet swallow the fact that the Labour Government established its headquarters in Glasgow. We shall have officials and offices in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom wherever it is useful so to do. If the hon. Gentleman would for once recognise the important devolution of decision-taking which was made when the British National Oil Corporation headquarters were sent to Glasgow, I should listen to him with more sympathy.

Will my hon. Friend publish the amounts of these salaries in due course, giving the information to the House, since they are of the greatest importance to the salary structure of other nationalised industries? The salaries paid to the chairmen of the electricity boards, for example, are published and well known.

I suggest that my hon. Friend should distinguish between the chairmen and their salaries and the salaries paid to members of the board and to executives. I was being questioned in particular about the executives. The Government are considering the question of publication.

Would it not be a good idea, since there is a shortage of members of the board of the BNOC, to invite Lord Ryder to join the board to exert his mollifying influence with Lord Kearton, as he has already done elsewhere? He has, after all, considerable experience in the exploitation of natural resources.

Before the hon. Gentleman casts any more aspersions of that kind, he might look around among some of his right hon. and hon. Friends.

But does not the Minister recognise that this is a matter of significant and central importance to the activities of the British National Oil Corporation? Will he confirm that the legislation which established the BNOC gives the Secretary of State a power of specific directive in these instances?

The powers of specific direction under the legislation are not related to any particular instance but are available to the Secretary of State in respect of any matter to which they apply.

Answer the question.

I am answering the question.

The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) may not be as familiar with the legislation as are some of us who took part in its passage.

I am.

The powers of specific directive are available to the Secretary of State, but the question of salaries for these people is for the board at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will seek powers to compel the electricity, gas and coal industries to participate in the Government's price restraint scheme.

No, Sir. Electricity tariffs could not be brought within the scheme without substantial public subvention. Coal prices are exempt from statutory control because of British membership of the European Community. The British Gas Corporation is voluntarily participating in the scheme in respect of domestic gas tariffs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the Electricity Council recently told the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that he had not even been asked to enter into this scheme? Is it not a remarkable state of affairs that in many cases electricity prices have doubled over the past 12 months and a 16 per cent. increase is in train, while a wide range of private enterprise companies are willing to enter into arrangements with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection?

We considered the position of the coal and electricity industries seriously, but we concluded that they could not be brought in without jeopardising their own finances. The position is that the area boards have put in for increases to take account of higher prices, including higher oil prices.

Is not the real problem for millions of those least able to afford it that they are having to pay far more for their fuel bills than they need to pay because they are entombed in local authority housing which has been inadequately thermally insulated and they have an electric heating system which is uneconomic and inefficient?

I think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that one of the difficulties of energy policy is that the alleged free market choice in energy is limited by the fact that people are in buildings which are not properly insulated and that they have appliances and heating systems which they did not choose. In answer to a Written Question today I am trying to set out the Government's new approach to energy policy to take account of those factors that it will take us some time to put right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present price of gas is extremely artificial?

My hon. Friend knows the fuel industries very well. He will also know that one reason why gas is cheaper, relative to electricity and coal, is that the British Gas Gorporation struck a tough balance with the oil companies, and our price legislation provides that gas prices are to be related to allowable costs and not based on a comparability arrangement. In looking at long-term energy policy—which I am doing—I am bound to take into account all sorts of inheritances from the past, and the House, the Government and the community must think about that if they are to make sense of difficult investment decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the volume of electricity produced by the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1975 and in 1973 and the proportion produced in both years from coal-fired and from oil-fired power stations.

In the calendar year ending 31st December 1973, the CEGB supplied approximately 209 Terawatt-hours of electricity, of which approximately 65 per cent. was generated from coal and 24 per cent. was generated from oil.

In the calendar year ending 31st December 1975, the CEGB supplied approximately 204 Terawatt-hours of electricity, of which approximately 66 per cent was generated from coal and 20 per cent. was generated from oil.

That information is very welcome. Since you will allow me to ask only one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and as it is imperative that hon. Members opposite, who are extremely ill-informed on these matters, are properly educated, may I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to publish in the Official Report a definition of "Terawatt"?

I shall certainly comply with my hon. Friend's request.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that although this 1 per cent. move is very welcome, it is essential for the future of a balanced energy policy in this country that more and more electricity generation should be based on coal, or on coal associated with nuclear fuels, so that our oil resources could be used in other directions?

I have given answers to similar questions. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We have always said that we must make the best available use of our indigenous resources, and coal is an indigenous resource.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action has been taken to combat hypothermia, particularly in warning elderly people of the need for proper heating, advice about paying fuel bills and new methods of bill payment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Chairmen of the British Gas Corporation and of the Electricity Council about measures to reduce hypothermia; and how many deaths caused by hypothermia have been notified to his Department since 1st October 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussion he has had with the chairmen of the nationalised industries so as to reduce the risk of hypothermia.

With permission, I shall answer these Questions together at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make an up to date statement on mea- sures to be taken to ensure that offshore oil activities are developed for the full benefit of the British people.

The Government are implementing the policies set out in the July 1974 White Paper "United Kingdom Offshore Oil and Gas Policy" (Cmnd. 5696) through the powers they have taken in the Oil Taxation Act and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act, through the establishment of BNOC, and through the current negotiations to secure majority State participation in existing commercial oilfields. In future licences the State will have the right to a majority share.

I welcome the steps taken by the Government to ensure a majority State holding. Will the Government keep their options open in the years ahead in respect of further reserves which may be found in the North Sea and in the Celtic Sea so that there can be complete State participation in ownership and so that the full benefits of development can come back to the people of Britain as a whole?

Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to the development of our Continental Shelf in areas which have not so far been developed, such as the Celtic Sea and other parts of our offshore areas. It will be possible for the BNOC to apply for an exclusive licence in any rounds of licensing, in which case the ownership by the State will be 100 per cent. and the return on profit will be 100 per cent. as well.

Is the hon. Gentleman happy that these offshore installations are safeguarded? Is he in constant touch, for instance, with the Ministry of Defence?

Yes, we are in touch with the Ministry of Defence. The last announcement to the House, I think made by the Minister of State for Defence, outlined the provisions which the Government are taking through the deployment of ships and aircraft to safeguard our North Sea oil resources.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the manager of one company has refused to enter into negotiations with the British Government for a participation agreement?

We have had communications from some companies stating that they are not yet prepared to enter into discussions in detail with the Government, but these difficulties will be overcome and I am confident that we shall reach satisfactory agreements with the companies concerned.

Do the Secretary of State's comments earlier this afternoon mean that he is reneging on the commitment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that participation will be voluntary and that he is now stating that it will be compulsory?

Nothing that my right hon. Friend said could possibly bear that interpretation. The hon. Gentleman should give up that sort of mischief-making.

My hon. Friend will know that a special element in offshore activities is the oil rig construction industry. Is he not aware that in my constituency a few days ago 2,000 people were notified that about 1,300 of them would lose their jobs in July because of the lack of orders? Is he further aware that the men appreciate the work of himself and the Secretary of State in attempting to get some sort of rationale working here in order that the future of the yard can be determined? Nevertheless——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two supplementaries. Perhaps he will wait for the answers to them.

rose——

I am asking the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that he has had his rations.

I am aware of the serious nature of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred. I think his constituents must be aware of the very diligent way in which he has pursued their interests with the Department.

We expect that there will be a number of further platform orders this year. Certainly the yard in my hon. Friend's constituency is well placed, on the basis of past productivity and excellent labour relations, to put in a bid for such orders as are available.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will hold consultations with the CEGB and the Gas Council concerning the effect of fuel pricing policies on low-tariff consumers.

I keep in contact as appropriate with the gas and electricity industries about all important matters of pricing policy.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Chairman of the Gas Council the tilting of tariffs against the small consumer—for example, charging 20p a therm to the consumer of only 100 therms a year, compared with a reduction to something like 12½p per therm for the larger consumer of 1,600 therms?

As the House knows, the Government asked officials to look into the problems of tariffs and the possibility of tilting tariffs in favour of small consumers. We are publishing the results of those studies—as it happens, they will be published today—and I hope that, when the hon. Member and others who have knowledge and expertise in these matters have an opportunity to look at them, they will see at least the logic which lies behind the Government's thinking. I hope also that the paper which we are publishing today will trigger off some public discussion about these matters, which must be looked at by the Government from time to time. I hope that this will be helpful.

My right hon. Friend can take it that many of us welcome his decision to publish material of this sort, but will he at the same time make clear that he is prepared to stand up to the bureaucrats in these nationalised industries on behalf of the voters who pay the bills and who put him here?

If it were as simple as that, energy policy would be very simple. When he looks at the arguments, my hon. Friend will, I think, find—this will emerge from the study published today—that, for example, not all poor consumers are small consumers——

Most are.

If he looks at the paper which we are publishing, I think that my hon. Friend will find that it would be possible to take a penny or two off the tariffs of some poor consumers but at the expense of a very substantial increase for those who live in all-electric homes. This is a more complex matter than my hon. Friend may yet recognise, and, although I should welcome his comments, since the Government always have an open mind on all these matters, I think that he should see the figures before reaching a final view.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter from the point of view of those living in all-electric homes? In my constituency, for example, I am finding old people with bills of about £150 a quarter, which is far too high. When the material is published, will the Government follow it up by taking action to assist consumers of that kind in particular, who are really in a very bad way?

I said in an earlier answer, and I say again to my hon. Friend now, that these are difficult questions because people do not always have control over the fuel which they burn since they are put into flats where there is only one fuel available to them. I shall be making a statement at the end of Question Time today dealing with one aspect of this matter. But I think that the adjustment to higher tariffs which flowed from the OPEC increases is an inevitable difficulty, and we are trying to look at the problems as they develop with a reasonable degree of good will and sensitivity.