asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates of the United Kingdom reserves of oil, gas and coal and the proportion of the European Community's indigenous energy reserves possessed by the United Kingdom.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on 5th July 1977. Estimated United Kingdom proved reserves, expressed as a percentage of total EEC proved reserves, are as follows: crude oil, 90 per cent.; natural gas, 24 per cent.; solid fuels, 52 per cent.

Since we have a substantial amount of the resources of the EEC, will my right hon. Friend ensure that these resources are developed in the interests of the people of this island as a whole and that in his negotiations with the EEC he will protect the British position?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister take into account the adverse negotiations on Scotland's fishing industry in relation to the EEC and the determination of the 50-mile limit when he negotiates an energy arrangement with the EEC as regards oil?

I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, and it is not absolutely the case that fishing and oil coincide, whether one considers this in terms of the arbitration we have had with the French or further arbitrations there may be, or within the context of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what increases in production and productivity have been achieved over the last three years in the coal mines since the signing of the tripartite agreement in 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed coal production problems with the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

Overall production and productivity in the coal mines has not increased over the past three years. I have discussed this and other problems with the Chairman and Board members of the NCB and the mining unions on many occasions.

What responsibility does the Secretary of State accept following the Government's signature of the tripartite agreement? In particular, can he tell the House why he failed to give support to the productivity deal in the coal industry?

Perhaps I could give the House some other figures. According to the German coal producers' figures published earlier this year, output per man-shift in hundredweights is 67 in Britain, 55 in France and 50 in Belgium. The operating subsidies paid per ton of coal produced are 83p in the United Kingdom, £3.73 in Germany, £22.22 in France and £36.64 in Belgium.

Accepting the Secretary of State's declaration that he was responsible, may I ask him to bear in mind that absenteeism is a major factor in declining coal production? Will he have an immediate meeing with the Chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss with him the bizarre situation which has arisen from correspondence I have had with the Chairman of the Coal Board, and also with Mr. Arthur Scargill, in which it has been declared that the miners from Yorkshire picketing at Grunwick have been paid by the union to be absent from the coalface?

My own view is that Members of Parliament or Ministers telling those in the mining industry how to produce coal is not effective. I am not prepared to learn any lessons on the handling of the coal industry from the Conservative Party.

Will my right hon. Friend accept and agree that the coal mining industry as an extractive industry, with investment over the years, has possibly reached its optimum? Will he further agree that there will be great problems in trying to increase productivity if there is no further breakthrough on the technological front and that we must, therefore, get accustomed, as most other countries have done, to the fact that productivity is not likely to increase by any great amount, whatever method is used? Will he also bear in mind that there have been other ballots in the mining industry in 1975 and 1976 which upheld the pay policy at that time and that the minority who were against it, such as Arthur Scargill and myself, had to accept that majority vote? Therefore, we expect the rest of the miners and everybody else to accept the majority verdict in this case.

As my hon. Friend knows much better than I, there are geological factors which make increased productivity difficult beyond a certain point. The House should also know that face productivity in the first 30 weeks of this year is up on last year and that in the new pits, such as Royston, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited on Friday, productivity is four times the national average because of retreat mining and new technology. All this underlines the unwisdom of those who are not familiar with or do not work in the mining industry in seeking to read lectures to those who actually work in it.

After the discussions with the Chairman of the National Coal Board, is the Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet as well as Secretary of State for Energy, able to make clear to the House that the Government are expecting the National Union of Mineworkers to accept only a 10 per cent. increase in pay?

The Government's position on this has been made clear time and again, including by myself when I visited a pit in Lancashire on Friday. The truth is that the disappointment felt by the hon. Gentleman and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends is due to the fact that there has not been a conflict or confrontation between the Government and the mining industry. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman has at the back of his mind. If I were to identify the policy of the Conservative Party, I think it might be properly called "In search of strife".

Is it 10 per cent., or more?

Will my right hon. Friend consider with the Chairman of the National Coal Board the question of increasing productivity by a productivity bonus scheme? I remind my right hon. Friend of the millions of tons lost to the British industry prior to the power-loading agreement as a result of the failure of the people at the point of production and the local underground officials to agree on geological and mechanical failures which interrupted production at the coalface.

My hon. Friend knows that there is a long history in the mining industry, and no doubt that long history played some part in the recent ballot. But he will also know that Joe Gormley, Lawrence Daly and Mick McGahey issued a statement recently, which I strongly support, calling for an increase in production in line with the undertakings reached in the tripartite agreement.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we regard his answers to the questions of my hon. Friends as pathetic as his general contribution throughout the period of the ballot on productivity? So long as he continues to have responsibility for his present office, will he recognise that his position as chairman of the tripartite committee places on him certain responsibilities which he cannot wave away in the way in which he has sought to do in the House? Will he use that position to try to do all he can still to achieve some element of productivity, which is recognised widely in the industry as being still possible?

The hon. Gentleman made a speech recently in which he threatened to review the capital investment programme of the mining industry. Nothing could be more likely to worsen relations within that industry than to suggest that this country could do other than rely upon coal. Since I read in the newspapers that the hon. Gentleman now has a public relations firm advising him, I suggest that he sacks it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he is considering for linking the British and French electricity grid systems; and if he will make a statement.

The CEGB is currently conducting preliminary investigations with its French counterparts into the feasibility of a 2,000-MW link between the two systems; and will be letting us have a full report on the technical and economic aspects of the project.

Is the Minister aware that greater cross-Channel power links could come as a most blessed relief to householders who have suffered much misery from the power cuts caused by industrial action, particularly by the mineworkers' and power workers' disputes in the past? Is he also aware that it could save us from the situation being exacerbated by the highly ambiguous attitude to these disputes shown here this afternoon and elsewhere by the Secretary of State?

That is a rather highly partisan attitude towards this important proposition. There are considerable economic advantages, quite apart from those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which exist between the two systems because of the diversity of peak demand. I have no doubt that the CEGB will be making that point in its report to us.

Accepting how absurd was the previous supplementary question, and the complete ignorance of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) of the relative energy resources of France and Britain, may I ask my right hon. Friend nevertheless to look at this matter seriously in terms, which have been expressed, of exporting coal by wire? This could act as an important stimulant to further investment by the CEGB.

Yes, Sir. The preliminary estimates given to us by the CEGB suggest that up to 1 million tons of coal by wire, as my hon. Friend described it, could be exported annually, depending on the relative base load generating costs. That is a very significant factor.

In this connection, will the Minister bear in mind the benefits which would accrue to the Great Britain grid from a link with Northern Ireland, where the capacity of the Kilroot power station greatly exceeds the prospective consumption in the Province?

Yes, Sir. We are considering that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for improving the Save It campaign.

The Save It publicity campaign forms an essential part of the Government's developing energy conservation programme, which has achieved significant energy savings. The campaign, whose present phase highlights the need to avoid energy waste and shows how to save energy, will be developed in the light of continuing research.

Since the net savings might be considerable, why have no additional allowances been made available to local authorities or private builders in order to improve thermal insulation levels?

I do not see what that has to do with the Save It publicity campaign. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put a Question down about it, perhaps I can give him the details of that.

Will my hon. Friend agree that, even though this may not have a direct link with the Save It campaign, dramatic improvements in energy conservation could be secured if we had a sensible level of insulation in local authority housing? Could he tell us how his discussions with the Department of the Environment have been progressing on this important issue?

The view of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) is totally misconceived, because he regards the Save It campaign, which is a publicity campaign, as the Government's energy conservation policy, which clearly it is not.

Is not the answer from the Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove typically complacent, and does not it show a complete ignorance of the real problem? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only country in the European Community that does not provide incentives for domestic thermal insulation?

I think that the ignorance was wholly on the part of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove in making a complete confusion between a publicity campaign and the Government's conservation policies. There is also, apparently, considerable confusion on the part of Opposition Back Benchers as a whole, who are now apparently yet again calling for massive public expenditure at a time when their Front Bench is continually calling for reductions in public expenditure. As for financial assistance being available, considerable assistance is already available. It is a fact that the hon. Gentleman's friends in Tory-controlled local authorities will not get on and utilise it.

asked the Secretary of State for Eneregy what discussions he has had with the Chairmen of the Electricity Council and the CEGB about future power station construction.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to be in a position to make a statement over the future ordering programme for nuclear power stations.

I have had many meetings with the chairmen on power station ordering and other matters in recent months. The placing of orders is for the Board.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing importance of a steady ordering programme for the turbo-generator and boiler-making industries? Is it not remarkable that whereas we are constantly told by the CEGB that the Drax power station has been brought forward, is not necessary and is not justified by demand, it nevertheless seems anxious to get on and order AGRs?

I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has made. With regard to Drax, the Government statement having been made, I put the matter to the Board and I saw the Chairman on a number of occasions. It is recognised throughout the industry that the Drax B station will not of itself solve the problem. That is why the thermal reactor choice, which I discussed last week with the Board and with all those concerned, is so important. I hope to make a statement on that matter shortly.

Can the Secretary of State yet tell us when he intends to make an announcement about the reactor choice for the next generation of nuclear stations?

I have just answered that question. I had my final round of consultations last week with all those concerned, and I shall make a statement as soon as I can. But I want to endorse something which I think the whole House wants, namely, that we should get on with the thermal station. We have been held back by the delay, not of the Government's making but in the customer making its recommendation.

Can my right hon. Friend say that when he refers to the next stage of the nuclear reactor programme he means the planned station at Sizewell in Suffolk and the station at Torness in Scotland which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

As my hon. Friend knows better than most, the question of ordering is for the Board. The responsibility that falls upon me, in the light of the advice given me by the Board, is to announce the Government's decision on the thermal reactor choice. I hope very much that I can proceed with that as quickly as possible.

With regard to the Drax order, will the Secretary of State say whether it is a matter merely of a dialogue between the CEGB and the Gov- ernment or whether Parliament will be asked, by means of a Bill, to approve any compensation that may have to be paid to the CEGB? If it is the latter, when does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce such a Bill?

It certainly is not a closed dialogue. Of all the things that one might have said about the Drax B discussion. no one could argue that it has been conducted behind closed doors. It has been the most open discussion that there has been for many years on the matter of energy policy and industrial ordering. But legislation will be required, and in that context, as in every other, Members of Parliament will have a full part to play.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if Her Majesty's Government intend to provide grants towards the cost of installation of solar heating.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what financial assistance is presently available to people installing solar heating; and what further steps he proposes to take to encourage such installation.

No grants are at present available towards the installation of solar heating, and there are no current plans to provide general assistance for this purpose.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is in the national interest to encourage the use of energy derived from the sun, which is unlimited and eternal and would save on the use of fossil fuels? Is he aware of the strong recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology? If so, what will the Government do about it?

There have been some interesting comments about this Administration but being the Administration of the Sun King is not one of them. I am aware of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which were published only in July of this year. The Select Committee made 22 recommendations about alternative sources, seven of which specifically referred to solar power, and we are considering them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next hopes to meet the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

I see Lord Kearton very frequently.

When the Secretary of State next sees Lord Kearton, will he point out to him that there is considerable concern among many of the oil companies which are engaged in consultations with the BNOC regarding participation agreements about the autocratic attitude being adopted by the Corporation? Will he point out that that is not likely to encourage companies in their future development programmes and will he condemn such an attitude?

Every little murmur of criticism by the oil companies against Britain and British oil policy has been amplified and expanded by Conservative Members. Every one of their predictions about the impact of our policy on the development of the North Sea has been proved wrong. If the Conservative Party thought about the national interest instead of simply the commercial interests of the international oil companies, this country would make a lot more progress.

Will the Secretary of State please convey to the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation that the growing disquiet arises because the BNOC has so far given no clear indication of what it will do with the fast accumulating stocks of crude oil in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that that is why Professor Odell has been recently added to the long list of his Department's employees?

I employed Professor Odell because I believe that he has a notable rôle to play in advising me on the relations between other Governments in the world and the oil companies with which they deal. The problem is not the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned; it was that we inherited a situation in which not one drop of North Sea oil was as of right available to the British people. That was the position which we have had to correct. The disposal of the North Sea oil which the BNOC has is a matter of great concern.

Has my right hon. Friend asked the Chairman of the BNOC for a report from his technical staff on whether the depletion policies and procedures being used by the international oil companies in the North Sea are in the national interest?

One of the problems of depletion policy is determining how to use the instruments available in such a way as not to damage the investment but to see that the oil is used and that the pace of development conforms to the national interest. In the draft document which is going to the Energy Commission on 28th November—it was published two or three weeks ago—there is a passage on that. I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend.

When the Minister meets the Chairman of BNOC, will he discuss the situation arising in the North Sea, where many of the standby vessels are operating under flags of convenience and, as a result, do not have to abide by any safety regulations? Is he aware that many of the vessels are unseaworthy and the crews untrained in first aid? Will he impress upon the chairman the necessity of the oil companies employing only vessels that fly the British flag?

This point has been raised with me, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have no powers to determine the vessels employed by the oil companies, and we are therefore limited as to what can be done. However, I am trying to get trade union representation extended offshore because, on safety matters, union representation is the best possible guarantee that safety regulations will be carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the National Union of Mineworkers' leaders; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to meet the parties involved in the tripartite consideration of the coal industry.

I meet representatives of the unions in the fuel industries and the chairmen and representatives of the fuel industry boards frequently, and shall do so next when the National Energy Commission meets on 28th November.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the leaders of the NUM that the unity of the NUM is paramount at this time and that any attempt to have localised productivity deals can only damage the long-term interests of the miners and will obviously be supported by the Tories, because that is what they have been endeavouring to do for many years? Will he also ask them to take no notice of those in Hobart House, who are not subjected to any productivity deals themselves, but to go along with their present basic claim in order to improve the prospects of the mining industry, thereby improving the chances of getting more people to dig the coal that most people are after?

I fully understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is a matter for the National Union of Mineworkers, and I do not believe that my intervention in this matter would be helpful, necessary or right.

Contrary to what has just been said, does the Secretary of State agree that the Nottinghamshire miners would have benefited most from the productivity agreement rejected in the national ballot? What would his view be if the Nottinghamshire miners were to seek a local productivity agreement with the Nottinghamshire area of the NCB?

The Conservative Party has been arguing for years about the desirability of balloting workers when matters come up for decision. There has been a ballot, and nobody disputes that it was a ballot in which all the issues were well understood, because it was not even decided on the first ballot. In the circumstances, I think that the House, and particularly the party opposite, had better decide what is its attitude to the decision which has been given. On the one hand, it is not possible to demand ballots and then complain, on the other hand, if the outcome does not conform to that of those who might have taken a contrary view.

When the Secretary of State meets the leaders of both sides of the industry, will he discuss with them the present serious shortage of domestic coal and anthracite? Further, will he accept that his failure to give full support to this productivity deal is a blow for the solution of those particular shortages?

I do not for one moment accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. As to solid fuel stocks, perhaps I may give the House the figures. The stocks now available to the trade are somewhat below what they were last year. On the other hand, the National Coal Board's dispatches of house coal are 300,000 tons up on the comparable period last year, and one-third of the increase in house coal production that I have just described took place in October. Regarding anthracite, where domestic supplies are not available there is a general understanding that the deficiency should be met by imports.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new initiative really is required if the long-term danger of division within the coal industry is to be avoided, if coal production is to be enhanced and if markets are to be retained?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That was the spirit in which the tripartite agreement was signed in 1974. It was that which led to Mr. Gormley, Mr. Daly and Mr. McGahey making their recent statement. I am the chairman of the tripartite committee, and I think everybody in the industry understands that this problem has to be met. My only doubt is whether Ministers or Members of Parliament are the best people to tell the miners, the mining engineers and mine managers how to dig the coal.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we support strongly the comment just made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that a new initiative is needed in which the right hon. Gentleman has a part to play? Does he not accept that continually to tell the House that his intervention would not be helpful makes absolutely pointless his rôle as chairman of the tripartite committee, which agreed that a productivity agreement was essential?

The hon. Gentleman is becoming silly. Last week he said that I should be dismissed. Now he says that I have a crucial part to play in the future of the industry. The hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind what he wants.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of mineworkers in my constituency feel that during recent weeks they have been led astray by false prophets? Is he aware that while they could have been earning £20 to £25 a week more in wages, which with an addition in March next year would have brought them within striking distance of £135 a week, they now face the alternative of either 10 per cent, or a strike, neither of which ideas they find attractive? Could my right hon. Friend, therefore, urge upon the leaders of the NUM to take a second look at this scheme, with a view to presenting more clearly its virtues to the industry?

There speaks the voice of the managers.

I understand fully what my hon. Friend says, but I must reply to him by repeating what I said, and firmly believe, that it is best to leave the matter of how the production is to be achieved to the Coal Board and the mining unions—which include the colliery managers, the overmen and deputies—because it is for them to determine how these problems should be solved. But my hon. Friend has fairly reflected the view that was put forward at the time of the ballot, and I know that that is widely understood in the industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the quantity and value of North Sea oil which was exported to other countries during the past 12 months; and what percentage this represents of the total oil lifted from the North Sea.

In the 12-month period ending on 30th September this year, nearly 13 million tonnes of North Sea crude was exported, representing nearly 40 per cent. of production in the period. The total value was approximately £750 million.

Those are staggering figures and, I should have thought, would almost immediately have made us eligible to join OPEC. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have been told by successive Ministers that the North Sea resources will not last indefinitely and that we must make the best use of them? They give us independence in oil in this country. There-force, why on earth is there this enormous level of exports? Why are we not retaining this oil for our own use rather than selling it to other countries, thereby denuding ourselves and perhaps creating a difficult future for Britain?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government do not go back in any way on the statement made on 6th December 1974 by the then Secretary of State for Energy, now Secretary of State for Industry, on the so-called two-thirds rule. We are, it is true, nearly 6 per cent. above that figure, which is significant. We are determined, because of our continuing consultations with the oil companies, to try to correct this matter and get it in perspective.

What percentage of the exports came through Shetland?

Without notice, I cannot say.

In view of the Government's failure to keep within their own limits in relation to the export of crude oil, will the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not a correct statement of Government policy that they prefer to allow the oil companies to export, as they will, rather than encourage them to invest in petrochemical developments in Scotland?

There is no intention on the part of the Government to allow oil companies to market at will. On the other hand, one must respect and observe our international agreements. We must respect the concerns of our friends in Western Europe, in North America and in Scandinavia, to whom most of such exports have gone.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is vitally essential that we use the money coming from North Sea oil to ensure that we modernise industry in this country and make it more productive? Does he believe that, if we give too much away to industry by reducing taxation and so on, the money from that source will go into industry, or will the Government have to do it themselves?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. There is to be a presentation by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy as part of the debate which the Prime Minister announced in August on the disposal of our North Sea oil revenues with regard to restructuring industry, the repayment of debts and the general improvement of the nation's economic performance. All that will come before us in due course.

In view of the Government's stated attitude to the export of crude and the fact that we are told on every hand that we have an excess of refining capacity in this country, why have the Government, with all the measures that they have taken for control, allowed 40 per cent. of the oil so far produced to be exported?

I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the subject, if he does not realise that we do not have control. The State does not have control over such exports. If hon. Gentlemen would like us to have control, they should say so, and we as a Government could say that we would consider the matter. If the hon. Gentleman means that we should seek to persuade the companies—through participation agreements or by some other means—to observe the two-thirds line, that is precisely the Government's policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the contribution to be expected from renewable sources of energy to total energy consumption by 1982.

There is expected to be no significant contribution from renewable energy sources by 1982 other than that from hydro power, which is expected to provide about 2 million tons coal equivalent given average rainfall.

Will the Minister accept that, if we are to change this lamentable state of affairs, we need to take more urgent action on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and also make a greater contribution from the available funds for research directed to renewable sources of energy rather than merely to nuclear sources?

My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said that the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology is being considered by the Government. As regards Government expenditure, it may be helpful if I inform the House that in wave power it is £2·5 million in two to three years and in solar energy £3·6 million in four years, raising total Government spending in that period to £6 million. Expenditure on geothermal energy is estimated to be £840,000 in three years and on wind energy £160,000 in one year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, having made inquiries today, that there is no country making any significant contribution, other than with geothermal heat, from other sources of energy. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of that.

When will a decision be taken on the Severn barrage scheme?

I do not think it will be taken tomorrow. I realise my hon. Friend's concern about this scheme. Some further studies are being carried out and, as he knows, there was a report on many aspects of the scheme, including cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to extending the scheme for assistance for certain consumers with electricity bills to cover other types of fuel.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what new plans his Department has in the current year to ease pressure on low income groups in meeting fuel bills.

Details of the revised scheme to help recipients of supplementary benefit and family income supplement with their electricity bills this winter were announced on 18th October. They include a payment of £5 to be made to recipients of these benefits in the week commencing 16th January 1978. This is intended to help with electricity costs but may be used in whole or in part towards other fuel costs. Beneficiaries may also claim 25 per cent. of the amount of electricity board bills which exceed £20. To extend the scheme as a whole to other fuels would be administratively very difficult.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, whilst the continuation of the electricity scheme and the improvements that he has made are extremely welcome, many of our poorest families and poorest pensioners are dependent upon solid fuel heating rather than upon electricity? They get very little out of this scheme. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, look at it again and try to overcome these administrative problems so that we may make sure that such people can afford heating this winter?

Clearly we cannot change the provisions of the scheme for this winter. However, to deal with my hon. Friend's point, if the people to whom he refers are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement they will get a payment of £5, which they can use in whatever way they decide.

Does the Minister realise that his response to a great human problem will be regarded as a very timid and bureaucratic one, ignoring, as it does, the needs of a vast section of the community, namely, deprived people? Will he have discussions with the Health Education Council, which is deeply concerned about the health, welfare and even the lives of old people during the coming winter?

The hon. Lady must not confuse the admittedly limited role and scope of this scheme with the much wider role and responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Security.

Can my hon. Friend give us some information about the take-up of the old scheme, and can he tell us why there is a £20 limit on the new scheme, because that seems to prevent those who depend on other fuels from getting the full benefit?

To deal with the second part of the question first, there is no limit. For bills up to £20, people will receive automatically £5 in cash. For bills in excess of £20, people can claim additional benefit. For example, if the bill is £40, the entitlement is £10, £5 of which will be paid automatically. They will be entitled to the other £5 as well, and they will receive it. Therefore, the discount is still 25 per cent. of the bill, whatever it may be, provided that the people claiming the discount are in those categories.

Does the Minister expect to announce the results of any consultations with the Department of the Environment about the excessive heating costs for tenants of local authority properties who are stuck with high-cost electrical heating?

The Department of the Environment, rather than ourselves, is looking at this problem in some detail. Clearly we are concerned about it too. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date when the Department of the Environment expects to reach any conclusions, but perhaps I may write to him about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a higher priority in his Department's policy to promoting energy savings changes in the production of electricity.

The electricity industry already maximises the efficiency with which it uses fuel in the generation of electricity. The House will be aware of the work of the Combined Heat and Power Group set up by this Department which includes representation from the electricity industry. A report by a working party of the group was published as Energy Paper No. 20 in March this year. Following discussion of this document, the Government will consider the work of the group and the possibilities for improving the efficiency of use of primary energy if it is found practicable for reject heat from electricity generation to be used in combined heat and power schemes.

As the process of energy conversion and distribution is the largest single consumer of primary fuel, consuming about 30 per cent. of the total, is it not time that the Government paid more urgent attention to combined heat and power and, indeed, to industrial progeneration?

We are paying urgent attention to that matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Many pilot schemes are already under way and detailed work is being done on them, in addition to the fuller report which I have mentioned, which we expect to have in the early part of next year.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the level of aid provided by the United Kingdom to Kenya in 1976; and what are the projected figures for 1977 and 1978.

In 1976, £11·5 million; the estimated disbursement for 1977–78 is £15 million. These figures do not include pension payments of £3·1 million or loans by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of £6·4 million in 1976.

In view of the substantial sums forwarded by the British taxpayer, will the Minister add his support to any approach to the Kenya Government to stop the blocking of funds which comprise the savings of many British citizens who have the misfortune to have them controlled by the Kenya Government and who have no ability at the moment to get their money back?

If the hon. Gentleman has specific problems in that direction, I hope that he will write to me so that I can give the matter the serious consideration that it will no doubt warrant.

In considerng this aid, will my hon. Friend remember that at all times since Kenya's independence in 1963 she has made the most sensible use of the aid that she has received from this country?

That is certainly so, and that is why the Government have strong concern for the need to support the Government in Kenya, in accordance with our aid strategy.

Does the Minister still believe that the Nairobi-based development division is the best way of administering aid both to Kenya and to the rest of East Africa?

The question of the development divisions is under continuous review. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular problem which he thinks makes it less than the best way, if he gives me his detailed view it will receive the consideration that it merits.

Does the Minister take into account the fact that the Kenya Government are most concerned about the possibility of threats from the Somali border? In that context, is he giving every consideration to aid for defence for this part of Africa, which is essential to keeping a democratic structure within central Africa?

The Government are very much concerned about the problem, but we do not use aid funds for defence purposes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the reason for that.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what sums remain outstanding of the 1971 loan to the Government of Paraguay.

None, Sir.

In retrospect, and bearing in mind the nature of the régime and the fact that it is reported in Paraguay that many critics of the national electric power network project for which that money was advanced in 1971 have been arrested, will the Government now say that no similar projects will be entertained in the future as long as the present régime in Paraguay remains?

No projects are anticipated at present. As in all other areas in the world, human rights considerations are seriously taken into account in any decisions that are made in relation to the aid budget.

Can the Minister confirm today's report that the Government have withdrawn the £19 million loan to Bolivia because of representations by the NUM about human rights in that country? Can the Minister indicate—

Order. This Question is about Paraguay. The hon. Member should put his question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether feasibility studies into sheepskin processing, mutton freezing and local television have yet been authorised for the Falkland Islands.

An adviser has just visited the Falkland Islands to give practical demonstrations on sheepskin processing and to advise on the feasibility of establishing a small skin processing project in the islands and on marketing possibilities. The Falkland Islands Government have not yet asked my Department to provide feasibility studies in mutton freezing and local television, but I should be prepared to consider any such requests sympathetically if they were made.

That answer is fair enough as far as it goes, but as the recommendations of the Shackleton Report were made 16 months ago, and as a whole range of feasibility studies has been promised in the Falkland Islands, should not greater progress be made? In any event, would it not be right to ensure that the results of those studies are made known and that any development schemes are agreed with the Falkland Islands Government before there are any further discussions with the Argentine dictatorship about the future of the islands?

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I had discussions with the Governor of the Falkland Islands about a month ago, and I can give an assurance that we shall do everything we can to promote the economic development of the Falkland Islands while discussions with the Argentinian Government proceed.

Will the right hon. Lady promise the House that a full answer will be given to what should be done about the Shackleton Report and essentially about the extension of the runway in the Falklands, which would make the whole situation much easier? Will she bear in mind that, with the new wealth being discovered in the Antarctic, it is more important than ever that we maintain our interest in the Falkland Islands?

I assure the House that we are deeply impressed and concerned with all these aspects of the matter.

Do something about it.

We are providing a great deal of technical assistance to the Falkland Islands to explore all these possibilities. We shall continue to do so and we shall certainly inform the House as soon as we can of our conclusions on the economic prospects for the Falkland Islands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that fish is as important as sheepmeat and that the most important feasibility study we can do here is that in connection with fishing? Is she aware that the seas are teeming with fish being caught by Communist nations and Japan and that Hull, among many ports, is teeming with vessels which cannot get to sea to catch fish because of the Icelandic blockade?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we are now touching on matters which perhaps concern our colleagues in the EEC even more than the Argentinian Government and the Falkland Islands.

In view of a reply to an earlier Question of mine that the development of fishing must be made dependent on co-operation with Argentina, may I ask the Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Argentina should be allowed to put a brake on the exploitation of the resources of the islands for the benefit of their British people?

No, not at all. It is a question of balancing the discussions with the Argentinian Government and the best interests of the Falkland Islanders. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the best interests of the Falkland Islands are at the centre of my thinking.

In view of the Minister's totally unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise the whole matter of the Falkland Islands on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what conclusions she has now reached about British funding of the Viphya forestry project in Malawi.

During discussions in May, my officials provisionally agreed to a tentative allocation of further capital aid of about £3 million over the next four years for the maintenance of the existing pine plantations and related development plus some additional planting. I now await detailed proposals.

Given that this project is in a deprived area, what are the immediate prospects for continuing with local employment? Can the creation of such a substantial asset at Viphya now be made commercially viable?

The fact that we are, as I have said, making a tentative allocation of further capital aid of £3 million over the next four years indicates the importance that the Government feel this project represents to a very deprived area of Malawi and obviously has significant repercussions for employment and for other benefits to come to the economy of that area.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a deprived area of Malawi, but can he say approximately what proportion of Government aid over the next four years this £3 million represents?

My right hon. Friend is trying to do his mental arithmetic, which is somewhat faster than mine. I cannot do so now, but I shall try to give a reply later today.

If my hon. Friend is considering the allocation of resources in Africa, and in Malawi in particular, will he give careful attention to the possibility of developing the cold chain for immunisation against diseases which can be prevented in that area?

My hon. Friend will know from the discussions which he has already had with me the level of importance that both I and the Ministry attach to this project. As I have told him, we are willing to have further discussions at any time to see how progress can be expedited.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of Government assistance to Mozambique during the current year; and for what purposes that assistance has been given.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Mozambique.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development which areas of development the recent aid to Mozambique is intended to cover.

British aid to Mozambique consists firstly of two programme loans, each of £5 million. The 1976 loan, which was offered following the Mozambican closure of its border with Rhodesia, was to buy British goods, notably vehicles including bus chassis and trucks, textile machinery, electrical generating equipment and transformers, and spare parts. The 1977 loan was made in response to the appeal of the Security Council of the United Nations last June and will be for spares and maintenance items.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread indignation in this country—

Nonsense.

about Government financial assistance to the Marxist régime in Mozambique, and that she has no guarantee that part of this very substantial aid is not being used by the Mozambique Government for the furtherance of the terrorists who are based there and who are murdering the Queen's subjects in Rhodesia?

Naturally, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Let me tell him, however, that there is total control over both the project aid and the programme aid to Mozambique, and no part of it is in fact going for anything that can be construed as assisting warfare. Second, may I say that perhaps it might be better if the hon. Gentleman took a little less notice of what I can only call the somewhat irresponsible and mischievous reports that appear from time to time in the Press about Mozambique.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the aid that the Government have agreed to give Mozambique. Is there not a degree of hypocrisy in the attitude that has been taken in certain quarters, since there was complete abandonment of any interest in the amount of arms supplied to South Africa and the use to which they were put in relation to holding down blacks and perpetuating apartheid in that country?

I would, of course, entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The facts and assessments upon which we base our aid to Mozambique—certainly the programme loans and the most recent one which I signed in Mozambique on my recent visit—are based on very detailed United Nations assessments of the cost to Mozambique of sanctions against Rhodesia and the cost to Mozambique of, among other things, armed attacks from Rhodesia. Indeed, we expect today—I cannot be quite certain—to be one of the co-sponsors at the United Nations in New York of a resolution which will endorse the conclusion of a United Nations report saying that an additional $87 million of assistance plus food support is urgently needed by Mozambique on these counts.

If it is right for the Government to cancel a £19 million aid project to Bolivia on the grounds that that régime has abused human rights, how can it possibly be right for the Government to provide £20 million of taxpayers' money to support a regime which is providing a base to enable guerrillas to attack Africans and Europeans in Rhodesia? How can the Minister support a régime which is advocating a militant and violent solution in Rhodesia while her colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is advocating a peaceful solution in that country?

The hon. Gentleman and I were both present at the debate on Friday on the Rhodesia sanctions order. He heard, as I heard, what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had to say. It is clear that there are two views about this matter. Plainly, there is a war situation in Southern Africa— it is not of our doing, but it is a fact—and that war situation means that there are guerrilla fighters stationed in Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique. Our aid to Mozambique is not concerned with that; it is concerned partly with the poverty of Mozambique and partly with the direct economic consequences to Mozambique of playing its part in what we hope will be a peaceful solution to the Rhodesian problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country appreciate the sacrifices made by the people and Government of Mozambique in carrying out a sanctions policy against an illegal régime? Would it not be better if Conservative Members spent less time defending those who are in rebellion against the Crown and more in supporting those who are carrying out the policy of this Government?

Hon. Members opposite would be well advised to read the United Nations report and to understand the very real economic sacrifices imposed upon an already difficult economic situation in Mozambique by the closing of the border with Rhodesia. They would do well to read some of the factual evidence on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who regularly read United Nations reports on the state

The gross national product per head of Mozambique puts it well within the category of the poorest countries of the world. Falkland Islands, I am afraid, does not quite fall into that category.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.