asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet other EEC Energy Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the EEC Energy Ministers.

I will next meet other EEC Energy Ministers at the Energy Council scheduled for 30th May, when the Council is expected to discuss proposals for supporting intra-Community trade in steam coal, demonstration projects for energy saving and alternative energies, and hydrocarbon exploration the problems of the refining industry, and the Community's energy policy objectives for 1985. I hope that we can have a wide-ranging discussion. These issues raise important matters of national interest which must be dealt with by Ministers.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will try to get the EEC Energy Ministers to buy more British coal instead of importing it from third countries.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to stand firm on the question of North Sea oil against the Common Market demands? Will he confirm, for instance, that the Common Market countries have already got their hands on 10 per cent. of the oil in the event of another Middle East crisis, for example? Is it true that they are making further demands for more North Sea oil?

Does not this bear out the views of those of us who, like my right hon. Friend, warned the British people, at the time of the referendum, what some of the Common Marketeers were after?

We have pressed very hard for further markets for steam coal. I gave the House the figures showing that Germany, France and Belgium subsidise their domestic coal industries to a very much greater degree than we do—50p per ton in Britain and £15·80 in Belgium.

The agreement that we have reached on oil supplies, in the event of an emergency, is in line with the International Energy Agency proposals, but I have made it clear that the development of sensible co-operation in the Community cannot mean that the Commission takes responsibility for energy policy in member States, including Britain.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us on the Labour Benches are seriously concerned at the attitude that the EEC Energy Ministers appear to be taking in relation to North Sea oil? Will he make it clear to them, when he next meets them, that in the event of a crisis in relation to oil supplies in the future they will be able to obtain supplies from the North Sea but that the price will be fixed by the British Government and that it will relate to world prices?

I have thought it sensible that we should agree to co-operative arrangements of a kind which would be neighbourly and good in the event of a supply crisis, and I gave evidence recently to this effect to the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c.

The price of oil will always be an international price. Indeed, North Sea oil attracts a premium price because it is a low sulphur oil. But I have made it clear, as I said a moment ago, that having co-operation in the EEC does not mean and cannot mean that the question of oil policy is transferred from this country to the Commission.

As the Secretary of State will be discussing EEC oil refining on 30th May, what line does he intend to take on this specific issue, in view of the importance that we place on this subject on the Opposition side? Will he come clean on this?

It is not a matter of coming clean. I could hardly have been more explicit. The Comission's proposals have not been properly worked out, and I have had difficulty with Commissioner Brunner about the presence of British Government representatives when the British oil companies are met by the Commission. What I have said to him, and to everybody else with whom I have discussed it, is that there must be a wide-ranging political discussion between Ministers before any proposals are brought forward, and also that we attach great importance to the imports of refined products. Before any question of a Common Market discussion about refinery policy is developed, we must look at the import position, which is a factor in the situation.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is in the long-term interests of the British coal industry that we have EEC agreement on a common coal policy, if not a common energy policy?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have urged most strongly—so far, I fear, without success—that markets should be found in EEC countries for coal which is produced in Britain, Germany, France and Belgium, which are the main coal producers. I wish that I could report more progress, but I have so far been unable to get an agreed proposal with that object in mind.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the EEC Energy Ministers, will he do whatever is possible to give stronger British backing to the Commission's idea of Community investment in demonstration projects, particularly in such vital spheres as energy storage and heat pumps, which badly need developing quickly?

I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks again at the text of my principal answer he will find that demonstration and alternative technologies are included. I regard co-operation in projects of that kind as sensible, so long as they are under ministerial control so that we are able to supervise the development of these projects.

Is it not clear from these exchanges that many hon. Members on both sides of the House see great scope for co-operation with Europe and great benefits for Britain's energy industries, not least the coal industry, in closer co-operation in Europe? Is it not clear that there is a better chance of achieving that benefit if we seek to work with the Community and the Commission rather than sniping at them at every possible opportunity?

I am on the record many times, both in the Council of Ministers and in this House, as saying that I am in favour of co-operation. I think that co-operation is very beneficial. But that is different from saying that the form in which a Community energy policy should develop should be the transfer of responsibility for prime decisions from this country to the Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultation he has had with the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation about the selling price of crude oil from the North Sea.

I am in constant touch with the chairman of the British National Oil Corporation on all important North Sea oil issues, including North Sea crude prices.

Why is it that in certain cases BNOC has undercut the price of crude which was established by the BNOC's partners in the North Sea?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from certain reports in the Press. In fact, the commercial operations of the corporation are a matter for the corporation. The corporation and its partners—particularly if the hon. Gentleman is referring to Thistle—have a common interest in obtaining full market value. If there is a dispute between the partners, it is quite right that they should seek expert determination of price. In one case this has happened. I should like to make clear that there is no question of BNOC seeking to undercut. The hon. Gentleman must remember that the market is very sluggish and it is very difficult always to arrange these matters in a perfectly fair and reasonable way.

Have the Government asked the chairman of BNOC to refute in public, in detail and with conviction the recent innuendoes that have been made about BNOC?

I am not certain which innuendoes we are talking about. If my hon. Friend is referring to the report in the Sunday Post regarding some question of misdoing, that is a matter to be reported to the proper authorities. I understand that the chairman is making a full investigation with regard to the rumours. If my hon. Friend is referring to other matters, such as the speech by Mr. Keller or the internal memorandum which was unfortunately duly leaked by one of the employees of another company seeking to criticise BNOC, that is another matter and we can deal with it quite easily.

If the Minister is worried about the sluggish price in relation to oil, would it not be much more effective if he had meetings with OPEC rather than BNOC about oil production world-wide? Would he not consider it worth while to take the advice of the TUC about having an effective depletion policy so that when oil is imported at very expensive prices in the 1990s, as estimated, there will be oil available from Scotland's resources in the North Sea?

That is a very easy question, the answer to which is that it is simply not the policy of the Government to be party to the OPEC arrangements, even if that was a club which was willing to have us a member. Nevertheless, we have active contacts with all the oil Ministers, but we take the view of the Western countries that it is better that the price of oil is stabilised for the present until the world economy revives.

In view of the fact that the price at which oil is acquired by BNOC is set in advance, sometimes by a panel agreed with the oil companies and BNOC, and in view of the fact that oil prices—as the Minister himself said—are sluggish, how will BNOC avoid making a loss on transactions in oil?

BNOC must seek to behave commercially. That means looking after the interests of the shareholders, namely, ourselves. At the same time, as I have indicated, it is important that BNOC maintains a very good relationship with all its partners.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current level of onshore oil exploration in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir. The level of survey work on shore under exploration licences is satisfactory. Further production licences which I hope to issue later this year under arrangements now being considered should lead to increased drilling activity, and hopefully production.

Can the Minister be a little more forthcoming? Since the uprating of the Dorset oil field, which now puts it in the small North Sea category, can he tell us where new oil is likely to be found and also what environmental guidelines are being laid down by the Government for onshore discoveries which could have quite a serious effect on the environment?

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is primarily a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that so that we can spell it out. With regard to the New Forest area itself, which is an area of possible prospection, there are six existing licences. Seismic studies have been done, not on all of them but on some, and it is up to the companies concerned to decide where they want to drill. With permission, I shall send the hon. Gentleman a map of the areas in his constituency that are affected.

Will the Minister tell the House what assurances, if any, have been given to those who wish to explore for oil about the future price of oil into perhaps the next 10 years? Will he tell the House whether the Government have offered any assurance that they will help to try to keep up the price of oil?

It certainly would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom if the price of oil was, say, to be halved, because North Sea oil would then be entirely uneconomic. But no one country, even the great Saudi Arabia, could ever absolutely influence and determine the price of oil in the next decade. Only someone with a magnificent crystal ball would be able to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet trade union representatives in the offshore oil industry.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I meet frequently with trade union representatives to discuss all aspects of the offshore oil industry. We attach great importance to the role of the unions in safeguarding the health and safety and improving the conditions of those who work in the oil industry.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the trade unions what action can be taken to stop the unfair discrimination by employers against British divers in the North Sea? Is it not absolutely intolerable that many British divers are finding it difficult to get work because employers are prepared to employ divers from other countries, such as America and South Africa, who come over here without work permits and who are willing to accept longer spells of duty and more stringent work conditions than British divers?

I must confess that British divers have been very active in pointing out the disadvantages which they suffer as against other divers in the North Sea. My hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State and I, with other members of the Government, have worked very hard in looking at the anomalies and to seek to make sure that British divers are encouraged in their work. That has been achieved. I must confess that my hon. Friend's letter to me raises a matter of concern. He has raised it again today. I am looking into it and we shall be discussing it with OILCO—the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee—in a month's time.

Will the Minister remind his hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that the divers as a profession do not wish to become union members and that they have achieved by their own private enterprise means a return to their original status as self-employed persons? It is unlikely that they would have achieved such a satisfactory conclusion if they had been union members.

The hon. Member must recognise that whether a person is employed or self-employed does not necessarily mean that in the former case he is in a union and that in the latter he is not. It is an entirely free decision of any diver whether or not to join a union. All I say is that the divers' collective representations on diving to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were successful because they were collective.

May I declare an interest? When will the Government introduce the regulations which they have been talking about for the last four years to safeguard the training of divers so that we do not have people coming in from other areas who are able to take away jobs from British divers who have the right specification of training?

That is a very reasonable point.

But when?

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made with the development of wave power; and whether any additional funding by the Government is contemplated in the near future.

Research under the present wave power programme, due to finish later this year, has been making encouraging progress. Two of the devices under study have now progressed to trials in open water, at one-tenth of the working scale. We are considering views recently put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy by his Advisory Council on Research and Development on the next steps in the programme, and we expect to be able to announce a decision shortly.

In view of the importance of this infinitely renewable source of energy, which is acknowledged by the Government, is it not time that we had a much more powerful financial stake by the Government in this work? Is it not also time that we began to look at the four or five different systems and to concentrate our energies on one or two of them rather than trying to go in all directions at once?

If my hon. Friend had listened to the very last point that I made in my original reply, he would have heard me say that we were about to make a decision shortly even in relation to finance. As for looking at all the different kinds of devices, wave energy is a new technology and, therefore, I think that it is right that, since the Government have announced already that they attach a great deal of importance to wave energy, we should look at all avenues of opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the development of electric vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's interest in electric vehicles is co-ordinated and led by the Department of Industry but the Department of Energy is closely involved. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently met representatives of the Electric Vehicles Association of Great Britain Limited led by Lord Ironside and we have received correspondence on the subject.

In view of the development by the early 1980s of new batteries capable of providing more than 200 miles from each charge, and the subsequent off-peak use of electricity, why is there such a divergence of view between the Department of Energy, whose Advisory Council on the Conservation of Energy has recently produced a forecast that seven out of every 10 vehicles should be electric, and the Department of the Environment, whose spokesman said only a week or so ago that the future for transportation lay in synthetic fuels?

I do not think that there is the difference that the hon. Member maintains. Most people are agreed that the long-term future in transport lies with electric vehicles and synthetic fuels from coal. Both are seen as very important developments. The hon. Member is slightly mistaken when he refers to the Advisory Council on the Conservation of Energy. Energy Paper No. 26 was from the Working Group on Transport of the advisory council. The advisory council has not as yet reported to my right hon. Friend. When it does, we shall consider its recommendations.

In addition to my hon. Friend's consultations with the Department of Industry, will he have much closer consultation with the Minister responsible for the disabled? Is he aware that there are a number of different electric vehicles which, for paraplegics and the disabled, could give much more service than they get at the moment? There is not enough variety, and production and maintenance costs are too high. In view of that, will my hon. Friend set in train a more strenuous research programme to ensure that vehicles of this kind are provided to the people who need them most?

I take my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps I could make some inquiries and write to him about it.

In connection with seeking greater economies in transport and energy use in which electric vehicles could play a part, why do the Government still persist with a situation in which we are the only country in Europe in which there is a positive disincentive, through the tax system, to move to the use of diesel as a fuel for vehicles?

We persist with that because the House of Commons refused to authorise proposals in the Budget last year which would have changed the position.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many proposals he has approved for heat and power schemes at power stations.

In February this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave consent for the Midlands Electricity Board to initiate a combined heat and power scheme in Hereford. This will be an economic and efficient use of the energy consumed.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State? Is it not imperative that in order to give credence to its national campaign for saving energy the Department should take the lead by reducing the waste of energy at the point of its creation?

My hon. Friend has an important point. Currently we are awaiting the final report of our Working Group on Combined Heat and Power. That report has been delayed slightly. When it is to hand, the Government will give it urgent consideration.

What plans are in hand to make Drax B a combined heat and power station; or do the Government intend to stand by yet again and allow the electricity industry to build another power station which will waste two-thirds of its energy?

I am not aware of any proposals to make Drax B a combined heat and power station. As the hon. Member knows, many of the large power stations which are already producing electricity cannot easily or readily be so converted.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he is making in plans to develop alternatives to nuclear energy.

I must apologise to the House for the length of this reply.

Among work being done on alternatives to nuclear energy is that covered by the Coal Industry Tripartite Group's Research and Development Working Party. This has considered a number of proposals from the National Coal Board and the British Gas Corporation for the conversion and utilisation of coal. My Department is considering its reports which contains some important proposals. It is expected to be published later this month.

In the field of renewable sources of energy, such as wave, wind, tidal, solar and geothermal, assessment studies have been made and their results published. My Department's research programmes are now well under way in all the main fields. Progress, particularly on wave energy, has been encouraging, but we have a long way to go before any of the renewable sources is likely to make a significant contribution to the country's energy needs. For 1977–78, the expenditure on nuclear research and development in the public sector is estimated to be about £130 million and that on all other fuels about £100 million. Energy research and development outside the public sector, including that of the oil companies, is additional to this and involves substantial sums of money.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long and detailed answer. Will he say whether any of these proposals is likely to prevent the development of a dependence by this country upon nuclear energy, with all the dangers that that entails?

I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that question. There are far too many uncertainties involved. All I can say—and it is implied in my orginal answer to my hon. Friend—is that we are looking at all options in relation to energy. We believe that any country which wishes to become an industrial nation must have adequate, secure, safe and preferably indigenous sources of energy.

Is the hon. Member aware that apology for the inordinate length of a reply is no substitute for concision?

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, with the maximum possible development of alternative energy sources allowing for a reasonable growth of the economy in the future, it will still be necessary, once the oil runs out, to fill the gap with nuclear energy, and that that is the view taken in every advanced industrial country?

Certainly the indications are that, if we are to depend on what is described as alternative or renewable sources of energy, all that we can expect to get in terms of coal equivalent is roughly 10 million tons. However, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), I referred to the fact that we were looking into the question of research and development into other uses of coal. These are exciting and challenging, and some of us think that they can be very helpful to the nation in the present century.

Rather than seeking alternatives to nuclear energy, which must always have a part to play in our energy mix, is it not more important that the Government should seek alternative approaches to energy policy based on some of the new thinking about forecasts and assumptions put forward by Chesshire and Surrey, for example, at Sussex University, and Gerald Leach at the International Institute for Environment and Development?

I am not sure whether the hon. Member is talking, about conservation or alternative sources of energy. I have indicated already that the Government are concerned about alternative sources of energy. My right hon. Friend has announced programmes on conservation. We are aware of the need to look for alternative, renewable sources of energy, and the Government are investing money in that direction.

May I invite my hon. Friend to a wet and windy weekend in a tent at Torness? Will he ask these 3,000 people to explain where they can get electricity from for their sons and for their grandchildren, even if they themselves are prepared to do without it?

In a previous answer I explained to the House that it is important that the country should have adequate, safe and secure sources of energy. This must be explained to all people who are protesting against various types of energy, whether it be on pollution grounds or any other grounds. We must have energy: without it we freeze, we die.

In view of the percentage of energy that is expected to be received from alternative sources by the year 2000—about 10 per cent.—will the Minister agree that it is simply not responsible to talk about alternatives to nuclear energy but that we must talk only of ancillary sources which will supplement nuclear energy?

I do not think that it is responsible to try to deceive people into thinking that in this century we will get enough alternative sources of renewable energy to sustain our domestic economy, let alone our industrial economy. All our answers have tried to illustrate that, although alternative renewable sources of energy are exciting and challenging, they will not solve the problems of energy provision in this century. Perhaps they will do so a little more in the next century. But it is our duty and responsibility as Members of Parliament to try to explain that to the electorate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline the principal terms and conditions from earlier offshore oil licence rounds which he intends to include in the forthcoming consultative document on the sixth round of licence applications.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish his consultative document on the detailed proposals for the sixth round of licensing for North Sea oil exploration.

I hope to publish a draft showing the proposed terms for the next round of licensing on Wednesday. These will provide a basis for consultation with the companies and the unions. My intention is to strengthen national control over offshore oil resources.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I do not expect an answer to this now, but may I urge him to consider seriously the possibility of the independent companies, if they are allocated licences, becoming operators?

I shall certainly consider what the hon. Member has said. There are a number of independent companies involved, and there has been no discrimination by the Department of Energy in considering applications. Since there will be an opportunity for consultation over this period, I take it that any representations which it might be wished to make will be made during that period.

Will the Minister confirm that BNOC has already had seven or eight new licences granted and that in the meantime there are two or more applications in the private sector which have been held up by him? Is not this discrimination and an attempt further to nationalise the North Sea rather than providing a mix with BNOC and the free enterprise sector?

I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. I announced in the House on 5th April that nine blocks would be given to BNOC on a sole licence basis and that this had no bearing on the new licensing rounds, one of which I have referred to in my answer. It is one of the conditions that we laid down that BNOC should be a partner in the fifth round, and we believe that that is right. If such an arrangement is not made, the extent to which there is national access to, or control of, these resources, will be very limited. To that extent we are filling in a gap left by the previous Conservative Government.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the North Sea is already over-regulated? Therefore, when he comes forward with his proposals on Wednesday, will he strike out what I understand might come into the operation—phased development programmes—and also the other suggestion of carried interest, whether it be voluntary or compulsory, which would only hold up operations in the North Sea?

I cannot anticipate the statement that I will make or the document that I will publish on Wednesday. That would be wrong. The hon. Member says that the North Sea is over-regulated. He must be aware that when the present Government came to power there was no legislation, no participation, and no petroleum revenue tax, and very little interest was taken in British domestic industry or the trade unions. We have filled a very important gap here without in any way checking the flow of investment or technology.

Under whose authority is BNOC telling oil companies to which it wishes to sell oil that it will arrange that they have exemption from export licensing controls?

The hon. Member puts forward a statement and embraces it as his own without any justification for it. The regulation powers granted by Parliament are granted to the Secretary of State and not to BNOC. BNOC has no powers of regulation whatever. I have made this clear again and again in the House. The hon. Member, for reasons best known to himself, speaks of BNOC as a regulatory agency, which it is not. The hon. Member has not produced any evidence to the effect that such a statement has been made. If he will produce evidence of what has been said, I am prepared to look into it. But I am saying that only the Government have been authorised by Parliament. That is the legal position, and to that we have adhered.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what research he is undertaking into the use of wood-burning stoves.

The Government are not at present paying for research into the use of wood-burning stoves.

Is not the Minister aware of the vast and increasing amount of residues in our forests which are very bulky? Would it not be a good idea for the Government to investigate the possibility of some sort of compressed briquette, similar to peat in Ireland, so that these residues could be burnt?

I understand that a number of studies have been undertaken, but they all suggest that the nation would be hard put to produce much more than 10 per cent. of its timber requirements by the turn of the century. There seems no way in which the country could become self-sufficient in timber for industrial purposes, even for building furniture, let alone providing a significant contribution towards our energy needs. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the sixteenth century, if one committed three offences in Scotland relating to the destruction of wood, they carried the death penalty.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the clear inference behind the Question is that an independent Scotland, run by the SNP, would be filled with wood-burning stoves?

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what derogations have been allowed to the British Gas Corporation from its statutory duty to supply all potential customers.

The British Gas Corporation's duty to supply potential customers is defined by the relevant Acts of Parliament. There is no ministerial involvement in day-to-day decisions on such issues.

Is the Minister aware that it is very annoying for people who want to have gas appliances to find that they cannot get a gas supply? Is he satisfied that the derogations from the statutory duty to supply gas are correct? Is he satisfied that these have kept in line with changing circumstances? I have received more complaints in the last three months from constituents about this than in the previous seven and a half years that I have been a member of the House.

It is quite clear that gas for domestic purposes is very competitive, but the main qualification to which the hon. Member refers is that British Gas is not obliged to give supplies to premises more than 25 yards from an existing main unless the recipients are willing to enter into an agreement with the Corporation about the cost of installation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been the lack of availability of gas supplies that has contributed to the building of a number of all-electric estates, especially in Northumberland, by local authorities and by the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware that on such estates problems of high heating costs and dampness have arisen? Will he encourage gas boards to supply to rural communities wherever possible and to co-operate as fully as possible with local authorities which want to convert from electricity to make gas available?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that people are living in all-electric houses merely because gas was not available. It is the local authorities which decide the sort of houses they want to build. If they wish, they can build solid fuel heated houses. There is plenty of coal and solid fuel to be burnt in Britain. As for taking the line that British Gas must supply gas to rural communities wherever they are, nothing would please me more if that were so. I happen to represent a constituency which covers 500 square miles of rural communities. However, British Gas must operate economically and within the statutes laid down by Parliament.

How much similar latitude is given to the electricity supply industry?

That is another question. If my hon. Friend cares to table such a Question, I shall answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is yet in a position to report on the effect that productivity schemes in the coal mines have had upon production.

The National Coal Board has reported that the effect of the local productivity schemes in the coal industry has been to produce additional output of about 1½ million tons of coal in the year 1977–78. During the first three quarters of the year, output was on a declining trend. This was reversed with the introduction of the incentive schemes, and an underlying and continuing improvement has been evident since its introduction.

I am sure that the figures will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that they have been achieved without any significant change in the safety record? Has it had any effect on the cost per ton extracted, either up or down?

I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman in detail about that. My information is that the schemes have had no impact on safety and no impact on cost.

Has the increase in productivity had the anticipated effect on miners' pay? Is my hon. Friend in a position to say whether there is any prospect of selling British-produced and Welsh-produced coking coal to the British Steel Corporation in greater amounts than at present?

There has been an average increase for face workers of about £20 a week, £10 a week for other categories underground and £8 a week for those on the surface. As for my hon. Friend's question about producing coking coal for the British Steel Corporation, my information is that we have coal that is more than suitable for the BSC's undertakings. If he cares to table a Question on that matter, I shall be able to give him the details.

Reverting to the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the introduction of productivity schemes has had beneficial effects on production and pay and that there is considerable good sense in relating the two factors?

Contrary to what has been going abroad, the productivity schemes are self-financing. As for making projections, I have always said that it is too early to do so. The additional money that the miners are getting is being earned on the basis of increased productivity.

Let us get the facts straight. Does my hon. Friend confirm that in the past three months of the financial year, when the bonus scheme was introduced, the overall output in British deep mines has fallen by ·2 million tons over a comparable period and that the make-up has been achieved by an increase in opencast operations? Does he accept that even in some of the high productivity pits there are payments as little as 24p a day for the so-called bonus?

Yes, there is a variation in payments throughout the whole of the coalfield. Deep mine output in 1977–78 was 104·4 million tons, 2·2 million tons less than in the previous year. The board estimates that without the effect of the productivity scheme in the last quarter production would have been 103 million tons.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we share his view that it is probably too early to judge the real effect of the scheme and that its value will be over the longer term? However, the scheme will have no real benefit unless there are markets where the increased output can be sold. That is why we attach great importance to the development of European markets for coal.

I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. We attach great importance to markets such as the European market. I take the view that, as a member State of the EEC, we are entitled to a share of the market of between 30 million tons and 40 million tons of coal that comes from third countries. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased when he reads the report of the working party, which I had the privilege of chairing, which deals with coal technology and other uses for coal. Other markets will be provided if we can put the terms of the report into practice.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what criteria she uses in deciding the distribution of the aid budget as between different categories of recipients.

Our criteria are explained in Chapter II of the White Paper "More Help for the Poorest", Cmnd. 6270.

As well as the obvious need, will the right hon. Lady consider giving higher priority to those countries that look like importing more from Britain, which is one way of ensuring that we get a good return on the money that we quite rightly spend on aid to the countries concerned?

Certainly, but I amplify my answer by saying that within the context of the policy of aid to the poorest it is essential—we are trying now to do this—to identify more of the larger infra-structural projects, which, incidentally, have a larger export component for Britain.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with her monitoring of the allocations that she makes within her criteria? Is she aware that very often there are inordinate delays and that as a consequence, because of the nepotism and other factors within the countries concerned, the desire to improve the economic structure of a country does not always come to fruition? Where her monitoring proves that there is a shortfall, will she take that into consideration in future allocations?

We do that. We have been making a close examination of our procedures within the Ministry in the past few months in order to reduce some of the delays. However, if a delay occurs, that does not mean that the country concerned fails to receive the amount of aid allocated to it, although it might have to stretch over another year.

Although the criteria are bound to be complicated and controversial, will the right hon. Lady consider the longer-term prospects of certain areas, especially perhaps in the Falkland Islands, and ensure that because of the potential wealth there a proper airfield is constructed?

I recently answered a question on that topic. Of course, we totally appreciate the needs of the Falkland Islands. Construction of an airfield involves a study of the sort that has not yet been undertaken.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is satisfied with the current operation of the Crown Agents.

Yes, Sir.

In the interests of open government, will my right hon. Friend ensure that from time to time a statement is made about the operation of the Crown Agents during the course of the parliamentary year so that they do not fall into the same trap into which they fell previously by allowing to move in rather sleazy operators? It may be that we can turn this loss-making activity into a profitable operation such as coal, gas, electricity, rail, the Post Office and many of the other 40 nationalised industries.

I ask my hon. Friend to allow me to consider that. We are within Government committed to a greater degree of open government. There are certain documents that my Ministry has been able to make available on request to the general public and the Members of Parliament. Will my hon. Friend allow me to consider how far we can make further information available in between the annual reports that are presented to me and Parliament?

Does the right hon. Lady remember that way back in early December she announced that the Government felt it necessary to bring forward proposals, or measures, to ensure that in future the Crown Agents were fully accountable? I am becoming rather bored with asking the question, but when will the proposals come forward?

As soon as we can fit them into the legislative programme.

Has my right hon. Friend considered with the Crown Agents the possibility of lending money to develop in desert areas the jojoba plant, on which I have written to her and on which there is to be a conference in May in London? Would it not serve both the purpose of producing much-needed foreign exchange for some of the very poorest desert areas and saving from extinction the sperm whale that produces oil for the leather industry?

This is more a matter for the Ministry directly than for the Crown Agents. Since my hon. Friend wrote to me, the matter has been fully under investigation by our scientific advisers.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she intends to take any new initiative to improve educational opportunity for people in developing countries.

With the help of the British Council and others, we are developing initiatives in several areas, including an expansion of English language teaching, distance teaching systems, and techniques of non-formal education.

These are designed to strengthen present Government-to-Government programmes which give priority to basic, vocational and technical education.

As there are now a large number of vacancies in colleges of education in this country, will my hon. Friend consult the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department about the possibility of offering some of these places to overseas students, especially those from underdeveloped countries?

As my hon. Friend readily recognises, the responsibility for that matter rests primarily with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, one of the greatest needs of the developing countries in relation to education is for educational provision inside the developing countries. We shall continue to have close liaison with the Ministers responsible for education in this country on the best use of our resources.

Will my hon. Friend consider widening his field slightly and talking to the Department of Health and Social Security about the chances of exchanging young doctors who have just finished their training in this country, but are still in their pre-registration period, when they are of most use to underdeveloped countries in which they could not only teach but practise medicine before returning to this country for full registration?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is a matter that is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I shall make sure that his attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks, and if he has any observations no doubt he will want to contact her.

Since it is in the interests of Britain as well as of the developing countries that we should provide further education facilities in this country, including technical facilities for students, surely the introduction of discriminatory fees for foreign students is inimical to British interests.

The question of fees policy is under study. There are now 10,000 officially sponsored overseas students per year. We recognise the importance of doing our best to meet all the demands made upon us, but we should not underestimate the fact that there are 10,000 official sponsored students.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the number of privately financed students from overseas is much greater than 10,000, and that the effect of the fees charged to overseas students is to discriminate against the poor in the developing countries and in favour of the wealthy?

I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. These questions are being considered. We are at present considering how financial assistance can best be channelled to students from poorer developing countries, and all these matters will be taken into account in those considerations.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much of the bilateral aid programme is being made available to projects of commercial importance; and what balance will be maintained between commercial criteria and aid criteria.

We decided last year that about 5 per cent. of the bilateral aid programme should be available to give higher priority to the commercial or industrial importance of developmentally sound projects. Commercial criteria are, of course, taken into account in the rest of the bilateral programme, but developmental objectives must come first.

Recognising that the development of the economy is the essential purpose of aid, may I ask why there was a specific earmarking of this 5 per cent.?

On the whole, it was to prevent a lot of hassle. There can be a lot of detailed arguments about how much developmental content and how much commercial content particular projects have. My hon. Friend will not be unaware that certain other countries have found ways of practising similar strategies. The 5 per cent. of the aid programme devoted to this matter could not be allocated to anything that did not have some genuine developmental purpose. However, provided that the project has a developmental purpose, the 5 per cent. is all about considering how far one might stretch the corners a little to accommodate considerable British industrial and commercial and export interests.

In order to maximise the effectiveness of our bilateral aid programme, it not there a case for looking again at the number of recipient countries, which has risen to 128, and considering whether the Government can concentrate their efforts on slightly fewer countries to better advantage?

That question relates very much to the CPRS review. The hon. Gentleman has been asking me some questions about the details of bilateral aid. He will find from my answers that a great many of the countries receiving aid are receiving only small amounts of aid, which is basically English language teaching administered through the British Council.

Therefore, the precise long list is not entirely indicative of the priorities. There are about 20 countries receiving the predominant amount of our bilateral aid. I do not want to cut that. Nor do I want to cut the tiny bits of aid that go to other countries. Sometimes such aid goes to a country in which aid is declining and we are phasing it out. Sometimes it goes to a country in which we are beginning and phasing in aid. One has to consider this matter extremely carefully.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she proposes to continue with aid to Grenada in view of the fact that police from that country are being trained in Chile.

The Government have taken no decision on whether to commit further capital aid to Grenada, for use when the current commitment has been spent. Before we do so we shall wish to consider a wide range of economic and other factors, including that to which my hon. Friend refers.

Will my right hon. Friend tell Sir Eric Gairy, when he next makes his aid application, that, whilst no one wants to play Big Brother or, in that context, Papa to the people of Grenada, there is no question of the £500,000 or so which goes to Grenada at the present time being continued if his police forces are, even in small part, being trained in the art of torture by those who have been taught by Nazis in Chile?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I note what he says.

Does the Minister appreciate that this question goes very far? What is the position about the granting of aid being conditional on the observance of basic human rights, as is mooted in the case of the renegotiation of the LoméConvention?

I cannot give the House much detail about the human rights element of the LoméConvention now, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate. We are only barely beginning the renegotiations. However, whether in bilateral aid or in multilateral aid, we are, rightly, anxious that human rights considerations, particularly when there is a gross and persistent violation of human rights, should influence what we do and how our taxpayers' money is spent.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the effect of the proposed Chilean aid to Grenada. Is she in a position to make any comment about the effect of the Government's action with regard to E1 Salvador and Bolivia and say whether that had any good results?

As my hon. Friend is aware, although this was not a matter for me, the Government did not supply arms to E1 Salvador. We have a minute technical assistance programme there, and we have not discontinued it.

In the case of Bolivia, it is difficult to assess the consequence of our actions or those of other countries such as the United States which followed our own. All that one can say as a matter of fact is that there is to be this summer a democratic election in Bolivia which has been brought forward by one or two years.

If the Minister suggests that human rights is an important factor in the provision of bilateral aid, how can she justify the provision of nearly £2 million a year to the Ethiopian regime?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a later Question on Ethiopia on the Order Paper, but clearly we will not reach it. The precise amount of aid is £1·6 million, and most of it relates to a rural water supply project which has been under way for some time. There are tiny bits of technical co-operation. I have looked at this very carefully in the light of the events of the last few months There are questions which relate human rights to the provision of aid. While aid may be cut off completely—and there have been only two such instances under this Government, Uganda and Chile—fortunately, in the case of Cambodia we do not have an active aid programme. In the case of Ethiopia and one or two other countries which are particularly sensitive in terms of human rights, we have to make a judgment as to whether the small amount of aid that we are continuing is likely to benefit the poorest and most humble people—

Order. I had hoped to call another hon. Member to put a question. The answers have been inordinately long. However, I shall call Mr. James Johnson.

May I revert to the original Question? Does not the Minister think it would be a sad day for this House if she and the Government were to judge the needs of starving people in the Third world on the basis of the behaviour of their leaders?

That is where the delicate balance of judgment has to be exercised. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.