asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement detailing the implications for British energy policy as a result of the proposed enlargement of the European Community.

The process of enlargement of the Community is still at an early stage, but nothing has been said which leads me to expect it to have any significant implications for the United Kingdom's own energy policy.

As there is a considerable oil-refining capacity in Spain, will the Secretary of State indicate whether he thinks that that capacity might have any impact upon his own objective of securing the maximum possible refining within the United Kingdom of oil from the North Sea? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to report to the House any observations that he may receive on this subject from the European Commission?

As I said in my initial answer, these matters have not arisen. On the general issue of refining policy, the hon. Gentleman knows that there was a discussion at the last Council and the previous one. I have made our own position clear, namely, that I must consult the oil companies and the trade unions in this country about the development of our refining policy, and that the Government's statement of broad objective on the refining of North Sea oil stands as it did when my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Energy made a statement in 1974.

As the candidates for admission are likely to be Mediterranean countries, is it not wise to hammer home to the Commission the importance of the use of energy sources such as solar power and other benign sources, which could be much better alternatives than nuclear energy?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I consider that it would be both premature and misunderstood if I were to argue for federal control of energy policy in the Commission, to which I am totally opposed, and start by saying that it should apply to those who themselves are only contemplating the possibility of entry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his latest talks with other EEC Ministers on energy policy.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of the reply.

The EEC Energy Council of Ministers met in Brussels on 13th December 1977. The Council considered the energy situation in the Community and the world and a report from the Commission on the achievement of Community energy policy objectives for 1985. It reached agreement on objectives for reducing the Community's dependence on external energy sources and for reducing the rate of growth of energy consumption, and commissioned further study of this question.

In the field of energy conservation, the Council agreed a framework directive on minimum performance standards for heat generators. Plant for which type testing is not practicable will be excluded pending further technical study. Ministers were also favourably disposed towards a draft regulation for support of energy—saving demonstration projects on which further work was commissioned.

The Council did not discuss the draft directive on the modernisation of existing buildings. I much regret, however, that the Council was unable to reach agreement on proposals to assist the Community's coal industry by support for construction of power stations using coal and by coal stocking aids. The Council also discussed the situation of the refinery industry in the Community and agreed an outline of its work programme for 1978.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but can he spell out in rather more detail what occurred regarding conservation policy, and will he consider publishing a White Paper on that matter? Further, can he say exactly what the position is regarding the draft directive on the modernisation of existing buildings, since that is an extremely important part of the same problem?

If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, I do not think that it is for me to publish a White Paper about Community energy policy. I made a statement to the House just before Christmas on our own conservation policy, and I have strongly urged—[Interruption.] I take hon. Members to be supporting me—that the Energy Council should meet in public so that everyone may know what goes on and that its documents should be made as widely available as are our domestic energy documents. Were that to be done, it would be found that there were technical problems and conflicts of interest in the Community, just as there are in the United Kingdom, which hold up progress in certain areas. But, for my part, the more sensible co-operation there can be within the Community on energy matters, the happier I shall be.

Did the Commission get round to discussing the longer-term difficulties and the need to develop safe methods of generating power by nuclear energy owing to the likelihood of fossil fuels becoming too valuable a source of raw materials for them to continue to be burned in the 20 to 30-year period?

Everyone in the world concerned with energy policy is engaged on exactly those matters, and what are called the "COCONUC" options—the coal conservation and nuclear options for the future—are widely shared. But I have made clear to the Commission and in the Council of Ministers that decisions about nuclear policy must be made by Ministers accountable to the House of Commons, and it would not be acceptable for decisions about nuclear systems or the planning and operation of nuclear power stations or the disposal of waste to be transferred from member States to the Commission. I think that this view is pretty widely shared among member States. These matters must be held within the responsibility of Ministers and their own Parliaments.

Were there any discussions relating to the selling price of United Kingdom oil, in view of various Press reports over a period that there is an attempt by the Common Market countries to ensure that the price of United Kingdom oil will be the same on the Continent as it is here?

The world arrangement for oil prices is that they are dictated by the Gulf price, and we sell North Sea oil already not only at the world price but slightly above it, because it has a low sulphur content and attracts a premium price. There has never been any question of our supplying oil or wishing to supply oil to ourselves in the United Kingdom at a price different from the world price. I think that the anxieties that exist about a possible intrusion into British oil policy emerge much more from the telegram that was received by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), which came out in a recent debate, whereby it appeared that the Conservative Party had been trying to get the Commission to intervene directly in the operation of the BNOC and our participation policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the boards of the energy industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

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

My next meeting with the chairmen of the boards of the energy industries, and with representatives of the energy unions, will be at the next meeting of the Energy Commission on 13th February. However, I may well see individual chairmen and union representatives before then in the normal course of business as matters arise.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairmen of the gas and electricity boards why they use private credit checking agencies to check on potential customers in respect of the supplying of fuel or for hire-purchase agreements? Is it not intolerable that public bodies should use private snoops, who go around spying on people and prying into their financial affairs, simply in order to put them at a disadvantage?

Subject to the fact, as the House knows, that I am not the manager of the fuel industries, I shall inquire into the point that my hon. Friend has raised and write to him upon the matter.

As the Secretary of State now believes that the prospects of an energy gap are receding, how does he see Denis Rooke's recently reported suggestion that supplies of North Sea gas might be limited this year? Will not this artificial restriction at source by a monopoly supplier mean higher prices for gas and fuel generally than might otherwise need to be the case?

The hon. Gentleman has raised many complicated issues in his supplementary question. As for the energy gap, the House knows that we published forecasts in September which implied that the gap might be very much narrower by the year 2000, to the extent of 60 million to 90 million tons of coal equivalent. That is partly because we allowed greater scope for conservation, partly because of change in methodology and partly because of the impact on energy demand of the current recession in the Western industrialised world. These factors have no bearing on the second point to which the hon. Gentleman made reference. I would rather have the opportunity of giving a considered view in response to his question. However, it has no bearing on the gas price decisions that might be taken this year, which will be governed by other considerations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the respective bosses of the NUM and the National Coal Board have conspired together to smash the unity of the NUM and to ignore the result of a democratic ballot? Will he recommend to Sir Derek Ezra and others in the higher echelons of the National Coal Board that when they go for a massive pay rise, as is being suggested by certain people—for Sir Derek Ezra it is suggested that his salary will be in the region of £40,000—they had better ask for a productivity deal?

My hon. Friend knows that the payment of the chairmen and board members of nationalised industries has been handled on the basis of the Boyle recommendations. It has been the subject of a general statement. My hon. Friend may also know that discussions have taken place on whether it would not be better for these matters to be considered in the context of each industry. Were that to be the case, considerations of the sort that my hon. Friend mentions might come to the forefront. However, in general I take the view that in this respect it is for the NUM to consider its own position and not for the Minister to comment.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will he follow up the idea put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and discuss their remuneration and that of the other directors of nationalised industry boards? For how long will the Government tolerate a situation in which people who are not board members are in many cases paid more than those with board responsibility? What representations did the right hon. Gentleman make on behalf of board members in the recent discussions?

I have had a number of discussions with board members of all the fuel industries on this matter. They have been to see me over a period of time about the anomalies and inverse differentials that exist between the most highly-paid officials and the board members. This is one of the problems that causes the greatest concern in the nationalised industries. It was with that in mind that, in passing, I made the point about these matters being considered in the context of each industry. The decision on this matter falls to be announced on behalf of the Government as a whole covering all board members and chairmen arising from the Government's response to the recommendations of the Boyle Commission. That is the basis upon which these matters are handled.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he hopes soon to meet again the Chairmen of the Electricity Council and of the Central Electricity Generating Board and whether, after that next meeting, he will be in a position to announce the choice of the next nuclear reactor?

I shall not be in a position to announce the choice, because the decision has not yet been made by Ministers. However, as the House knows, a further round of discussions is taking place. I think that the House is also familiar with the alternatives being pressed by various interests. I have to do the best I can in the light of these further consultations. When the Government have reached a decision, it will fall to me to announce it.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to say that, when he next meets the Chairman of the National Coal Board, he will make clear to him that, if the various ballots go in that direction, area or pit-by-pit productivity schemes will have the warm support of the Government?

:There is no doubt or argument that the 1974 productivity agreement entered into by the Government, the National Coal Board and the unions referred to productivity schemes, and these have been handled in the normal way by management and unions. It does not fall to me to make any further comment on that matter.

:When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the National Coal Board and one of the barons of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he draw their attention to a report that a productivity agreement had been reached at Bevercotes Colliery which awarded coalface workers an increase of £23 without any extra effort of productivity? Is this not either indecent propaganda or a flagrant breach of the Government's 10 per cent. policy?

I think the House knows that the nature of such arrangements is that they be locally negotiated. It is not for the Government to comment on that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to call a meeting of the Energy Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the progress made by the Energy Commission; and if he will detail its future programme.

The Energy Commission had its first meeting on 28th November and discussed the Department of Energy's working document on energy policy. Its next meeting is to be held on 13th February at Lancaster House, and it is intended that further meetings will be held at intervals of about three months. The agenda for the next meeting is not finally settled.

Before the meeting on 13th February, will the Secretary of State urgently review the composition of the Energy Commission, because there is a certain absence of representatives from a number of energy arenas? For example, does he recognise that there is no representative from the energy research or conservation arena? Is he also aware that there is no representative from the engineering profession's Watt Committee?

I am afraid that I cannot review the membership of the Commission before the next meeting. We had great difficulty in settling on the membership that we have, because, frankly, everybody wanted to be on the Commission. In fact, Sir William Hawthorne is a member of the Commission. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's comment about conservation representation is not entirely correct. Sir Brian Flowers and others with great experience on the research side are also represented.

What I have done—I think that this is appreciated—is to ensure that the documents are made public. It is my intention, so long as I can carry the Commission with me, to publish the transcript of the last Energy Commission meeting. Therefore, everybody will have an opportunity of seeing how the discussion developed. Unless we were to have national energy conferences at quarterly intervals with everybody present, it would not be possible to operate on that scale. I think that it is fair to give the Commission a chance to show what it can do.

Is it not fair to say that the advice that the Commission gives to the Secretary of State reflects closely the participation of its members? Would it not be more correct to say that if, for example, the Chairman of the Electricity Council was on the Commission we should get one set of advice on nuclear reactors, whereas if the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board was on the Commission we should have different advice? Does not that underline one of the weaknesses of the way that matters are conducted?

I hope that the House will not be too ungenerous. Hitherto, Ministers have received advice secretly from their officials with advice from individual nationalised industry chairmen both directly and through the Department. I have substantially broadened the publication of documents and the range of advice available to me. I have not limited it by making the documents private. I think that the House would do less than justice to this experiment, which I hope will succeed, if it suggested that it is still no different from what it has been before.

In the end, I must be responsible to the House of Commons for energy policy decisions, including the choice of reactor. I could not, and would not, wish to shield behind advice that might be given to me by those who are present. I must accept my responsibility, but at the same time I must be able to get a wide range of advice. That is what I have sought to secure.

At the next meeting of the Energy Commission, will the Secretary of State consider nuclear reactor policy and use that occasion to rehearse his well-known ambivalence towards pressure water reactor design?

I do not think that either part of that question is correct. At the last meeting, the point about reactor choice was raised. A number of people gave their views on the matter, as will be evident when the transcript is pub- lished. As I think is known, there was a strong view in favour of the adoption of the advanced gas-cooled reactor. However, it does not fall to the Energy Commission to express a decision on that matter. I hope that the Government's decision on this matter will be a great deal closer, if not already made, by 13th February. That decision will be made on the basis of a wide range of factors which have to be taken into account, including the advice of those who are represented on the Commission.

Is not a major weakness in the composition of the Energy Commission the fact that, in its initial findings on the advanced gas-cooled reactor, the largest producer of energy in this country was not represented and the largest user of nuclear reactors—the CEGB—had no representative on that body?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the CEGB has made its own recommendations to me. I have met the board of the CEGB and the Electricity Council on a number of occasions. It is also known, because, fortunately, all these matters have become public, that the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board wish to order advanced gas-cooled reactors. The discussion is about what will follow at a later stage. I think that all this is clearly understood. Nothing that has followed from the establishment of the Energy Commission has in any way limited the range of discussions, which, as the House also knows, will be renewed.

The Energy Commission was set up to look at the wide range of energy policy, not to be the sole channel through which advice was offered to Ministers. The views of the Energy Commission, as expressed by those who spoke, were clearly explained by me when I met the Press after the meeting and will emerge from the transcript when it is published.

Answers are becoming very long again.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in settling pay claims within those nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

I understand that discussions are proceeding in respect of all claims so far received.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that it remains the Government's policy and his own personal policy for all the nationalised industries, including those involving the miners and the firemen, to settle claims within the 10 per cent. guidelines?

The Government's policy has been made clear on so many occasions that I can say categorically that there is no doubt that management, in negotiations with the unions, has this in mind when reaching conclusions on negotiations when they take place. Some of them are now taking place.

I was going to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is true that Mr. Frank Chapple is now a secret Communist.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current off-take of oil from the North Sea oilfields.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether oil production from the North Sea is in line with the targets set by his Department.

I am satisfied with the level of production, which is now meeting nearly half our requirements. Figures for 1977 production, when available, are expected to show a slight shortfall on our forecast.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that oil is in very short supply, not only in the North Sea but throughout the world, when compared with the amount of coal that is available? Will he ensure that the smallest quantity of oil is consumed in power stations, if its use is not abolished altogether? Will he ensure that coal takes the place of oil? Does he agree that that would give the mining industry the impression that the Government were giving their support to increased productivity?

I agree with my hon. Friend. What he suggests has already been done. There has been a substantial shift away from oil burning. New arrangements have been made governing the import of coal, and Drax B has been ordered. I am not suggesting that the switch has gone as far as some would like it to go, but the pattern of our energy policy is firmly based upon coal, and forward forecasts, which have now been made public, indicate the rôle which coal will play. There should be no fears in the mining industry on that score.

Is the Secretary of State aware that oil production is at present four or five times Scotland's annual consumption and that by 1990 Britain—if it still exists—will be importing oil at a much higher cost? Will he give urgent consideration to the request by the TUC that an oil depletion policy should be followed?

There has been a statement on the Government's depletion policy, which is set out in the working document which went before the Energy Commission and which will appear in its final form in our Green Paper. This sets out our position that we are aiming to move towards self-sufficiency. Beyond that, we shall take account of the desirability of preserving oil in the ground and the impact on the industry of the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.

Every part of the United Kingdom is dependent to a substantial extent on every other part in terms of one fuel or another. For example, Yorkshire coal is an important part of our coal reserves and it is transported to other parts of the United Kingdom and used there.

I appreciate all that my right hon. Friend has done in moving towards coal-burn in power stations, but will he again look seriously at the proposal for producing one new oilfired power station?

I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to Insworke Point. I have made it clear that the Government do not favour further oil-fired capacity, for the reasons which I have given in the House today and which emerge clearly from general statements on energy policy that I have made.

Will alterations be made to future Government estimates to take account of the delays incurred by the Government before the announcement of the fifth round of licences? Does the Secretary of State recall that the Government assured the House that there would be no delay in drilling and that the 1977 drilling licences would be caught? But delays have taken place. Does this not fully substantiate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) warned would happen when the Secretary of State made his statement on 9th February?

The hon. Member is oversimplifying the matter. There was too large a block of licences in 1972, which had the effect of creating a demand which industry in this country could not meet. I am not blaming anyone for the decision, since I understand the reason. There was a substantial release of licences under conditions that were not favourable. We had to balance out the demand for industry and the demand for oil itself at home and put the participation agreements into place to ensure that we had a proper advantage from them. Taken overall, the speed with which we moved on this was about right. I cannot accept the hon. Member's criticism.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many research or development projects he is currently sponsoring into improved methods of the bulk storage of electricity; and if he will make a statement.

None. Research and development into methods of bulk electricity storage in England and Wales are the responsibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board. My right hon. Friend's Advisory Council on Research and Development is satisfied that appropriate attention is being given to this subject, and there is nothing I can usefully add by way of a statement to the House.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is he aware that there is an enormous potential prize to be won here—namely, if we could find an economic method for the bulk storage of electricity, we could reduce by about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. the need for installed electricity capacity in our supply industry, because it would iron out the peaks and troughs? We could save hundreds of millions of pounds by such a method. Could the Minister and his right hon. Friend take this matter more seriously?

We do take the matter seriously, but I was answering the hon. Member's Question, which involved costs. The CEGB is currently assessing the possibility of two methods of storing off-peak energy for recovery at times of peak demand. These are the storage of hot water at nuclear power stations and the combined storage of compressed air and heat for recovery via a gas turbine. The CEGB also has a watching brief on the requirements involved in the question of battery development. The pumped storage scheme is expected to be sufficient for CEGB needs until the 1990s. The technology of pumped storage is well known to the CEGB.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that none of the research suggests that the Dinorwic project is behind the times but that it is very ambitious? Has he any indication that the CEGB is looking for a further pumped storage scheme for the 1990s?

There is no pumped storage scheme before the Department at present. I have visited Dinorwic and I was impressed. The first set will be in commission in 1981 and the full station should be in commission in 1983.

Will my hon. Friend further examine what could be done by using a system such as that which is operating in Wales, I think at Ffestiniog? I know that I have got the name wrong, because, being a Yorkshireman, I have difficulty in pronouncing Welsh names. Will my hon. Friend ensure that this type of system is further advanced throughout the country, especially in parts of Scotland where there is power from water to make the turbines go round and thereby create electricity?

I do not quarrel with what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that Welsh constituents will agree that Dinorwic is not the only place where we have pumped storage. I have already said that the technology is well known to the CEGB although there are no further plans. Such plans would come forward with a change in demand and economics would be taken into account.

Is the Minister aware that his earlier answer was disappointing in that it indicated a negative attitude on the part of the CEGB? Will he be more serious about renewable sources of energy and put more effort and money into energy storage?

If the hon. Gentleman will study some of the answers I have given, he will agree, as, I think, will the whole House, that no negative approach is being taken by the CEGB. In answer to his hon. Friend's Question I mentioned ACORD, which will be looking into this whole question sometime this year. This matter is under constant examination and revision.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a regular progress report to Parliament on the Joint European Torus project; and if he will make a statement on the progress achieved to date.

Yes. The Council of Ministers has chosen Culham as the site for JET and agreed the broad outlines of the management structure. An interim JET council consisting of officials and experts from the 10 participating countries is preparing the statutes of the joint undertaking which will manage the project and taking the decisions necessary to maintain the momentum of the project during this interim stage.

Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that every effort will be made to press ahead with the project, bearing in mind that it could enable us to avoid using the fast breeder reactor at all?

Yes.

How many staff were lost to Culham owing to the inordinate delay in taking a decision?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any figures. I can only say that the whole of the staff at Culham and the whole of the staff at Bicester welcomed the efforts by the Department to bring JET to Culham. It is a United Kingdom-based project.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he anticipates future orders will be attracted to the oil platform construction yards at Portavadie and Hunterston.

We are reviewing the position at Portavadie and Hunterston in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but no final conclusions have yet been reached.

Do the Government now realise that this was an ill-conceived project which served only to waste £20 million or more of taxpayers' money? When the Cabinet gives further consideration to how oil revenues should be spent, will it bear this salutary lesson in mind?

I cannot agree exactly with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the background to this was that the decision to support the development of these sites in 1974 and 1975 was taken in the light of the buoyant platform demand forecasting by oil companies and independent authorities and against the background of the loss of several orders for concrete platforms overseas because of lack of sufficient capacity in the United Kingdom. There was pressure from the House of Commons in relation to concrete platform orders. Concrete platforms seem to be out of fashion at present, although their prospects cannot be entirely ruled out.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy why power station coal stocks have been allowed to fall by about 2·1 million tons as compared with a year ago.

Power station coal stocks at 24th December 1977 were about ½ million tons less than at the same time a year ago. This is the result mainly of increased coal consumption at power stations last year.

Is power station coal stocking left to the CEGB according to normal, prudent and commercial considerations, or has pressure been brought to bear by the Department on the CEGB to reduce stocks?

No pressure has been put on the CEGB to reduce stocks.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago his right hon. Friend recommended that the miners should be enabled to acquire shares or a holding in individual pits where they worked so as to encourage their involvement in the industry? In view of the miners' determination now to relate their good capitalistic output to productivity, what does the hon. Gentleman think about that idea now? Is he prepared to admit that there is advantage to be gained now for miners by their becoming financially involved in the pits in which they work?

If the hon. Gentleman is asking what I think of the idea, I think that the idea would be rejected out of hand by those who work in the industry. Producing coal is not a matter of drawing up balance sheets. It needs men and machines to produce coal. The miners have made very substantial progress over the years, particularly since public ownership. They will not want to go back to being treated as a subject of accountancy. I remember the idea very well. It was put forward in a Private Member's Bill or in a motion. The miners have rejected it out of hand.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current offshore exploration.

Exploration and appraisal activity in 1977 was higher than in the previous year with over two dozen rigs engaged on average. Exploration results were down on 1976.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the suspicion is developing in Scotland that because of the delay in forwarding exploration in the south-west approaches of the English Channel the policy of the present Government is to try to exhaust Scottish oil reserves first by leaving English oil reserves for the future benefit of England?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands our purpose, our problems and our progress.

Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity to inform the House of what control the Government have over the extraction rate from oilfields within United Kingdom jurisdiction?

The powers of depletion and the associated powers over the approval of the development programme were given to me, or to the current Secretary of State, by the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. These are limited only by assurances given by my predecessor at the time when we came into office necessary to secure that the investment went forward. All these matters are described as fully as I can describe them in the working party on energy policy strategy document published in December.

Could my right hon. Friend give the House a progress report on explorations taking place in the Irish Sea and in the mouth of the Mersey?

Not specifically without notice, but I will make available to my hon. Friend all that I know. The brown book is published annually and gives a full account of what is taking place.

Will the Secretary of State rest assured that there is a great deal of interest not only in the Irish Sea but also in the Celtic Sea? Will he publish his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) in the Official Report?

All the information is public, but the House must understand that I do not carry in my head all the relevant statistics for every sector to the extent that would enable me to answer off the top of my head. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman has all the latest information. We publish an annual report, and the brown book, as it is called, which is due in April, will bring together all the information we have about exploration, development, and the rate of success of drilling, which has hitherto been somewhat disappointing, in the Celtic Sea.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any proposals in the last 12 months from the Central Electricity Generating Board for the construction of further nuclear power stations

In 1977, the CEGB sought approval for a capital investment programme including a nuclear station to begin construction in 1979. Nuclear orders are under discussion in connection with the Government's decision on thermal reactor choice.

Can the Secretary of State give any information about any proposals for a further atomic power station in the county of Gwynedd in view of the impact study made by the Gwynedd County Council which named a number of sites, which has caused not only worry from the safety point of view amongst those who fear fast breeder reactors but also planning blight in the areas which have been named as possible sites for further nuclear power stations?

The hon. Gentleman will know, and I think the House will think it right, that as the Minister dealing with energy matters I am not responsible for planning permission for power stations. Indeed, my view is that it is much better if all these matters, including the handling of waste and other matters with a high environmental interest, are handled independently by another Minister under provisions laid down by Parliament for handling these considerations. I will certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point is put forward, but I cannot answer questions about planning approvals for power stations. I am concerned with the reactor choice, a matter which was referred to in an earlier Question.

Since there is general agreement about the urgency of the decision on thermal reactor choice, and since there is disturbing evidence of the Secretary of State's practice of sacking those who disagree with him—starting with the Chief Scientist and now, it is alleged, even threatening his own Under-Secretary—and since it is now alleged that the latest gentleman to disagree with the Secretary of State's views is the Prime Minister, what plans does the Secretary of State have for him?

The hon. Gentleman systematically fails to rise to the occasion when these matters are under consideration. He must know very well that, far from dismissing my scientific adviser, I appointed Dr. Walter Marshall to the post of Deputy Chairman—

He was already appointed.

No, I appointed him as Deputy Chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and asked for a full-time scientific adviser. If the hon. Gentleman repeats every bit of tittle-tattle that he can pick up, he will not do justice to the magnitude of these matters. I should add that the question of reactor choice involves a lot of interests and pressures which have to be taken fully into account, but there is no doubt that the demand of the customer—or the customers, if one includes the South of Scotland Electricity Board—is for early orders for the advanced gas cooled reactor. There is no doubt about that. As every bit of information on this is now public, I hope that the House will not be tempted into error by the hon. Gentleman's notions about "Whitehall behind closed doors", which he must have picked up from watching too much television over the Christmas period.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he estimates that the world supply of oil will fail to meet demand; and if he will make a statement.

Various forecasts have been made of the future balance of oil supply and demand. These depend on so many factors that I cannot give any meaningful estimate. As I made clear at the IEA Ministerial Council, Her Majesty's Government would welcome a United Nations rôle in world energy forecasting and policy discussions.

Has my right hon. Friend forecast the effect on price of excess demand and the consequent effect on consumer industries, such as transport, and energy-producing industries, including possible new ones such as the Severn barrage scheme?

What I have done—this is a different question, but I do not complain about that—is to publish our own forecasts going up to the end of the century, and I have made available our forecasts, very preliminary in character, going up to the year 2025, to give an idea of what might happen. But these forecasts are subject to great uncertainty. It is expected that the price of energy may double in real terms by the end of the century. The relative prices of coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy could all be subject to great variations. The more we look at them, the wiser it becomes to take these matters on an annual basis for discussion, to publish a Green Paper for the Energy Commission, and then try to reach the best decision annually, so far as that can be done.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demand for oil will far exceed the supply in the next two decades? Therefore, what consideration is he giving to the by-products of coal? Should we not be thinking about building more chemical plants and especially about rebuilding the Manvers Main chemical plant, which it is rumoured will close down?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is the Chairman of the Research and Development Committee, which will be publishing a report shortly and which has looked into all the matters connected with the by-products of coal. We also invited the House to pass the Coal Industry Act, which it did. That Act gave the National Coal Board the power to move into refinery and other operations. There is a great deal of scope for further development in the marketing and use of coal other than by burning it. If we can make progress in that direction, it will be highly advantageous

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has to review the membership of the Welsh Development Agency.

As with all appointments which my right hon. and learned Friend makes to public bodies, he will review the membership of the Agency in good time before the term of office of individual members expires.

Is the Minister aware that whereas there is general satisfaction with the work being done on laud clearance by the Agency, and with its preparation of advance factories, there is considerable disappointment that it has initiated very little public enterprise or joint ventures? When it comes to the time to reappoint members or to appoint new members, will the Secretary of State bear that in mind and make appointments that can bring about a dynamic change in that direction?

In appointing new members, we shall take that and many other matters into consideration. One of the encouraging features is that the Agency is now investing at an average rate of about £200,000 a week.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales has suffered for long enough from Tory nominees on non-elected bodies, which have proliferated throughout Wales? Therefore, until the Welsh Assemebly is created, will he ensure that people appointed to such bodies are more representative of the people of Wales?

In appointing to the Welsh Development Agency, my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned that people should not be appointed as representatives of specific organisations but should be appointed in the light of their experience and ability. The experience and ability of members of the Agency have not been brought into question.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the Building Societies Association.

At present neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any arrangement to meet the Chairman of the Building Societies Association.

What progress is being made in discussions between the Director General of Fair Trading and the building societies about the introduction of a scheme for combined valuation inspections and structural surveys? Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of such a scheme would be an added protection to would-be house purchasers?

These discussions are continuing. No conclusion has been reached. There could be some value in making building society surveys available to the prospective purchaser. This is also being looked at by the National Consumer Council.

When the Minister next meets the building societies, may I ask him to remind them that, in addition to being lenders of money, they also receive money from vast numbers of our constituents and that these depositors deserve careful consideration and ought not to be subjected to wild ideas aimed at getting rid of all the caution which building societies now exercise when investing other people's money?

The hon. Gentleman ought to specify the incautious activities he has in mind before I comment further.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what are the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for additional financial assistance to Mozambique.

My right hon. Friend will be making a statement on this matter very soon.

Bearing in mind the Government's decision to cancel their £19 million aid programme to Bolivia, will the hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent the Government take into account the policies of the donee Government in deciding whether to give aid and the amount of aid to overseas countries?

Obviously, the Government take this into account very significantly, and we consider that there is every justification for the change of decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not consider that that has any bearing on our aid to Mozambique.

Is it not a fact that almost every other European country has a substantial aid programme for Mozambique? As someone who recently visited Mozambique in connection with that country's projected membership of the Lome Convention, may I ask my hon. Friend to accept that it would be absurd for Britain to go slow on the aid that we are giving, and that many of us hope that we may be able to step up that aid in order to compensate for the great difficulties that Mozambique is suffering as a result of invasions from Rhodesia?

I readily recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. In fact, over 50 other donor countries and agencies are already providing support for Mozambique. They include a number of Governments in the Commonwealth, they include the European Community, which provides food support, and they include a wide range of United Nations Agencies. Mozambique's needs are serious, and this has been reflected by the recent United Nations missions which have gone there. We hope that all donors will continue to give the help that that country so obviously needs.

In what way can the British Government guarantee that no part of our provision of aid to Mozambique is being used directly or indirectly to sustain the guerrillas operating againest Rhodesia?

We have made sure in our bilateral dealings with Mozambique that there is a full understanding, and we are satisfied from our negotiations with Mozambique and through the involvement of our own diplomatic mission there that there is no use of Government funds for the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what evaluation she has made of the impact on British engineering of any likely increase in overseas aid arising from Great Britain's improved balance of payments situation.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on 26th October last, the previously announced amount of the aid programme in 1978–79 is to be increased by £20 million. The programme is planned to increase further in real terms in subsequent years. I would expect this to lead to increased orders for British engineering products, but no precise evaluation of such an effect is possible.

But if there is to be this increase, cannot the Minister accept that there is a duty on the Government, who, by delaying investment decisions on the British Steel Corporation, for example, have held up much of the work of the metallurgical plant industry in this country? Therefore, given the Third World interest in becoming steel producers and the BSC commitment to those developments, cannot the Minister say that the Government are determined to try to ensure that at least some part of that comes back to our hard-pressed plant makers?

It is the Government's policy to consider the interests of British industry. In 1976 about £180 million of United Kingdom exports were directly financed from our bilateral capital aid programme. This represented about 5 per cent. of United Kingdom exports to developing countries. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind a problem of a particular industry, and if he writes to me about it, I shall look into it, but I am sure that he would not expect me to be able to give a detailed response now.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a small but important British engineering product is the Medresco hearing aid, and that there are tens of thousands of those aids now available in Britain because they are being phased out to be replaced by a more sophisticated model? If they were given to developing countries they would solve the problem of deafness for many thousands of people in those countries. Therefore, will my hon. Friend discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled to see what can be done about giving away these technically efficient models?

I was not aware of the availability of those hearing aids, but now that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the matter I shall look into it and see whether it is appropriate to enter into discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has further information that he would like me to consider, I look forward to hearing from him.

Are not some of the positive arguments put by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) a few moments ago examples of the sort of arguments that should be put more forcefully to British public opinion as a whole? Therefore, is it not regrettable that only about £150,000 goes towards the Government's Development Education Fund when, if we matched the Dutch, for example, on a proportional basis we should be spending about £12 million on such a project?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said. It is lamentable that the whole of our development assistance receives so little attention in the media and in public discussion. I have taken every opportunity to see what other nations are doing in development education. I welcome the creation of at least the small beginnings of our Development Education Fund. We are considering its report.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many representations she has received about the Fay Report on the Crown Agents.

My right hon. Friend has received 20 letters concerning or referring to the subject matter of the Fay Report.

Will my hon. Friend now add any further detail to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last month about the tribunal of inquiry, bearing in mind the great public concern about the loss of more than £200 million of public money? Does not this whole scandal underline the need for new legislation to make the Crown Agents, Treasury officials and other public servants more accountable to the public, and also the need for a Freedom of Information Act to enable the public to know precisely what is being done with public money?

I regret that I cannot add any information to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 8th December, when he told the House of the Government's conclusion about the most appropriate form of inquiry. The tribunal's scope and procedures will be for approval by Parliament when the resolutions required by the 1921 Act are brought before the House. It is intended that this should be done in the very near future. My hon. Friend's other general points will be appropriate for consideration in the discussion in the House then.

Since, as the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has just said, there is an urgent need not only to incorporate the Crown Agents but to make them fully accountable to Parliament, is there not an immediate need to introduce legislation to deal with the problem? When do the Government propose to do this?

I can add nothing to the statement that I have just made to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). These matters are subject to consideration, and the House will have the opportunity to express a view on them in due course.

Will my hon. Friend suggest that when they are brought before the House the powers should include the ability to force the Bank of England to explain precisely how, seemingly with the connivance of the Bank of England, payment of the dollar premium was evaded to such a large extent that, according to reports, as much as £100 million was stashed away abroad? May we be assured that those powers will be brought before the House?

I cannot give assurances about any particular matter, but I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's comments are brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities. I hope that when we discuss the powers of the proposed tribunal my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to make the point that he has just made.