asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the projected rate of return on capital for each of the oil and gas fields that are currently being considered for development, and those already being exploited, around the United Kingdom.

The purpose of the measures I announced on 11th July was to secure a fairer share of profits for the nation while leaving the oil companies a suitable return on their capital investment. But it is not possible to estimate with any certainty the detailed figures requested by the hon. Member.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is his Department doing any work to try to ascertain the answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have? Does the Minister accept that, even under his current proposals, the rate of return may be as high as 65 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, far from nationalisation being the answer, the real solution lies in having a tax structure tailored to each field which will allow no more than 25 per cent. profit?

We are entering into discussions with the oil companies, and it is not possible or wise at this stage to lay down what we regard as a reasonable rate of return. It will vary substantially according to the price of oil and the value of the field, but the profit could be as much as 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. if nothing were done.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, regardless of the rate of return, a dangerous myth is being circulated that North Sea oil will solve Britain's economic problems? That is not likely to be the case. It will not be cheap oil, and it will not save Britain from taking the really hard decisions that will have to be taken if our economy is to survive.

It is true that North Sea oil will not be an answer to all the problems of Britain, but it will be a valuable asset. In terms of trade and balance of payments, the return from the oil will be enormous. It depends how we use this opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the reasons for the current slippage in exploration and production targets in the North and Celtic Seas.

I am unaware of any slippage from exploration targets. On production, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 5th July.

In view of that statement, will the Under-Secretary state what is the relevance of the Government's participating in the oil business? I take it from what he says that he is quite satisfied with the way in which the oil companies have carried out jobs in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. What reason have the Government to interfere in exploration as well as development?

My right hon. Friend spelt out clearly the objectives of our North Sea policy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to discriminate between the mechanics of getting the oil out and the State's responsibility to secure an adequate share of profits and control of this basic national resource.

Will the Under-Secretary accept that future slippage may be caused by a lack of housing in the North and North-East of Scotland? Is the Under-Secretary aware that a report out last week by the Joint Regional Planning Advisory Committee and Aberdeen University said that unless there is more drive behind housing projects in the area, many oil-related expansion plans would have to be postponed or cancelled?

I agree that there is an urgent need to increase house building in the Aberdeen area. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is giving it high priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet ready to make a full statement on the Government's policy on North Sea oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals the Government will make to bring the North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas interests into public ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet ready to make a full statement on the Government's policy on North Sea oil as it relates to the North of England.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement I made in the House on 11th July. I reiterate the Government's intention of ensuring that the regions in need of development will receive particular benefit from the exploitation of our indigenous petroleum resources.

In view of the almost instant hostility to that statement in some parts of the House, notably on the Opposition benches, will my right hon. Friend say what the reaction has been in the country, and particularly in Scotland, since Scotland is most directly affected by these policies?

I believe that the statement has been widely welcomed, particularly in Scotland, where people realise that they will get a proper benefit and a proper share only by the policy that I have outlined.

Does the Secretary of State, if he takes a maximum controlling participation, intend to entrust the management of these large funds to the oil companies, or does he intend to assume for himself the ultimate responsibility for the management of these highly technological projects?

The British National Oil Corporation will co-operate with management in the existing oil companies. There will be understanding and the closest cooperation between the Gas Corporation and British Petroleum in this respect.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that although his statement was welcomed there is a body of opinion which feels that we should have gone further and which hopes that he will go further in future? Does he believe that the oil and gas finds off the coasts of Scotland, Wales and England should be developed for the people of Britain as a whole and not for selfish commercial interests or for the benefit of one section of Britain?

I agree with my hon. Friend. When oil comes ashore—as it will—from the Celtic Sea, comparable arrangements will be made in Wales to those that we are making in Scotland.

As for participation, as outlined in the document, has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost of this participation? For instance, on the assumption that 51 per cent. in future licences and 51 per cent. in past licences is taken by the Government, what is the total amount of capital that will have to be put in?

I cannot say at the moment because we are entering into discussions with the oil companies as soon as possible, but the Government's return on any investment will be enormously greater than the outlay a year or two after the start of production—as will the return for the oil companies.

What proportion of the oil revenues from the Scottish sector of the North Sea will be used for the selective improvement of old-age pensions and other benefits in Scotland?

The hon. Member will recall that on 11th July I told him that we were not waiting until oil revenues started before setting up the Scottish Development Agency. That is what we are doing. Of course, the people of Scotland will benefit substantially over the years—they are already benefiting—from North Sea oil.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but is he aware that many people in the North of England are deeply disturbed to find no specific proposals for the dispensing of oil revenues for regional development in the North of England? Will he now make an announcement that he is to establish a North of England development agency comparable to the Scottish and Welsh development agencies already announced?

We are determined that Scotland, Wales and the older industrial regions of Britain will benefit from offshore oil and gas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, far from his proposals being widely welcomed, he got a lousy Press for his statement the next day? On the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), surely the point is the incremental value that the taxpayer will get from a massive investment, over and above anything that he gets from taxation. Will the Secretary of State now explain what real benefits could conceivably flow to the taxpayer which cannot be achieved by taxation and by strengthening the controls?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should be so sour. On any objective assessment of the Press and the other media, my proposals were widely welcomed. Even in his own party there is a great split about this. There is a letter in today's Daily Telegraph from the prospective Conservative candidate for Newham, North-East, in which he says:

"I would like to state my agreement in principle with Labour's proposal for a 51 per cent. shareholding by the State in North Sea oil."

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the contribution of the European Community to the existing national scheme of assistance for redundant or redeployed coal miners.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Commission of the European Communities regarding the establishment of a convention under the European Coal and Steel Community treaty regarding rehabilitation aids to British coal miners.

Following discussions with officials of the European Commission, I hope that formal agreement on a convention will very shortly be reached. It will apply to men made redundant or transferred after 1st January 1973, and the Commission will contribute to the cost of the existing Government schemes for the mining industry. The Commission will also contribute to the cost of deploying redundant men from mining to other industries and the retraining of ex-miners at Government training centres. I expect that the total contribution will be about £4 million for all redundancies or transfers occurring during the first year.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not agree that this illustrates the practical side and benefit of the Community, rather than the rich man's club suggestion which we hear made so often?

It is well known that hon. Members on both sides of the House have different views on this matter. It is as well to tell the hon. Gentleman that the agreement that I outlined in my answer to his Question was the result of long and protracted negotiations. The standards imposed by the Commission are different from those that we have in this country. For example, the Commission provides a maximum grant element of £300, whereas in this country it is a lump sum of £1,250. In addition, the Commission does not take into consideration the fact that the scheme should last for three years, but says that it should be for 24 months. Further, the Commission does not take into consideration national health and social security benefits. But, as the hon. Gentleman said, this convention will be of some advantage.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the European subsidy it is proposed will be used by the Treasury and the National Coal Board to recoup cash already committed to the existing scheme, and how much of it may be used to extend the existing scheme or improve on it? In other words, to what extent will British miners benefit directly, financially, from European money coming in to support the reorganisation scheme?

As I informed the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), our scheme is much more advantageous than that proposed by the Commission. Although the total sum will be £4 million eventually, the 1973 levy on the NCB was about £2½ million.

In addition to the levy, have we not also, as a country, had to pay into the fund 57 million units of account? Therefore, on balance, are we not getting out only a proportion of the units and the levy we have paid in?

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that as well as getting benefits we have to pay in substantial sums so as to pay for the benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will detail the terms of the EEC loan to the National Coal Board for the modernisation of housing for mineworkers.

The board has applied to the Secretary of State and to the Treasury for the necessary formal consent to borrow from the ECSC, and for the Treasury guarantee which is required by the ECSC. The conditions of the loan, which is a sterling one, are as follows: £1·66 million at a rate of interest of 1 per cent. per annum, repayable in 25 equal annual instalments commencing in December 1975.

Is that not a further example of the tangible advantage derived from our membership of the Community? Why does the Government propaganda machine deliberately try to suppress good news coming out of the Community? Is it because anti-Common Market Members on the Government side are afraid of letting the public know the truth?

I do not see anyone on this side of the House trying to withhold the truth. If the hon. Gentleman wants more information I can tell him that benefits which will accrue in regard to modernisation of National Coal Board houses will mean that tenants will gain some advantage in relation to rent.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that £1·66 million, even at 1 per cent. rate of interest, is minuscule by comparison with the current trading deficit of £2,000 million which this country is now running with the rest of the Common Market?

Order. That is enough.

My hon. Friend draws comparisons involving sums of money relating to our balance of payments, but this does not bear any relationship to the scale involved in the matter with which we are concerned here.

Will the Minister confirm that this is an example of tied houses of which the Government thoroughly approve?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The National Coal Board has a great deal of compassion for people who have to leave the industry because of difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to bring the National Nuclear Corporation under public control.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is now taking to extend the area of public participation in the National Nuclear Corporation.

The future shareholding structure of the National Nuclear Corporation is at present under discussion.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present holding in the National Nuclear Corporation is completely inadequate in order for the State to have control; that we should have at least a 51 per cent. holding; and that it would be far better if the corporation were wholly owned by the State, and therefore wholly controlled by us?

These matters are under discussion. As my hon. Friend will know, the General Electric Company has suggested that it wants to get rid of some of its shareholding in the NNC. I shall be discussing this matter with the GEC and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is there any proposed change in the agreement for the management of the company which was associated with the 50 per cent. holding by the GEC?

The GEC has told me that it hopes to and will indeed maintain a full management commitment to the nuclear programme.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the wish of GEC to withdraw somewhat its proposed holding is an unrivalled and almost painless opportunity for the State to obtain a majority shareholding? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, at the time that there was a Conservative majority, recommended a doubling of the State holding in the National Nuclear Corporation?

In the discussions which I have said I shall be having I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend, as well as the views of the Select Committee.

Is it right that these matters are dealt with in the report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board? When are we to see the report, which was promised when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement on this matter?

I hope that the report will be published before the end of the month. Speaking from memory, I do not think that the structure of the NNC is covered in the report, but if that is not the case I shall get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what financial aid is being provided by the European Community for British research projects on safety and health in the mining industry.

In 1973 the European Communities authorised financial assistance totalling £287,400. Applications for further assistance are at present under consideration. The results of all research aided from Community funds are, of course, freely available to member countries.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the large contributions from the Common Market are a further reason why we should remain a member? Will he do his best to persuade all his colleagues that we should remain inside the Community? Will he also indicate where funds would come from if not from the Community source?

There is no doubt that the sums of money allocated are going towards a very important function—some sums dealing with safety and some with health. The hon. Gentleman has made up his mind about the Common Market question, but perhaps the British people will have an opportunity to make up their minds as well.

Will my hon. Friend consider expending more and more money on research into pneumoconiosis? Is he not aware that this disease is a deterrent to young people who might wish to enter the mining industry, and that the more we can do in this field the better?

I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend about allocating sums of money to carry out research into this disease. A slice of the money mentioned in my main answer has been allocated for this purpose. What the National Coal Board has recently put on at the Dust Control Exhibition shows how much attention the board has given to this disease.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the statement by his former colleague, Mr. George Thomson, that the British coal industry has received £23 million in the past three months to modernise equipment and improve safety? If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman bring it to the notice of the National Union of Mineworkers?

I am not in a position to confirm statements made by other Members of this House, or by people outside the House. No doubt what the hon. Gentleman has said will arouse interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated number of tons of proven coal in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

The National Coal Board's latest estimate of known deposits of coal in the United Kingdom is 97·3 thousand million tons, of which some 3·8 thousand million tons were considered to be economically recoverable. This estimate is currently being re-evaluated in the light of changed circumstances, but it is too early to give a definite figure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in spite of the welcome finds of oil in the North Sea the amount there may last only one or two decades at the most? Does not this mean that the proven amount of coal far outweighs that of oil? If so, will my hon. Friend consider increasing the amount of coal from our industry and making certain that the manpower is available to work future coal? Will he give greater consideration to wages and conditions and a good superannuation scheme, so that we can encourage people not only to remain in the industry but to enter it?

My hon. Friend is right. There is more coal available than any other fossil fuel. The estimates of reserves to which I referred were given in October 1973—a significant date. The recoverable figures are now probably twice that estimate, although only a tentative examination has so far been made. As for coal production and miners' conditions, we are carrying out an examination and will shortly submit a full report to the nation and Parliament.

In view of those figures, why was there any talk of redundancy among miners in reply to Question No. 2?

We need all the coal and all the miners we can get.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the present structure of the power producing industries.

I announced on 11th July the change which I consider most urgent—the creation of the British National Oil Corporation. I have no further plans for immediate change but recognise that adaptations may be required to meet new situations.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of a new Electricity Act, which would encourage both local authorities and private industry to generate electricity and enable both them and the present electricity boards to sell heat as well as power?

That is an interesting suggestion, which I shall consider.

Reverting to the answer about the British National Oil Corporation, do the Government believe that there is a place for United Kingdom-owned and United Kingdom-based private enterprise concerns in the North Sea? In view of the "ring fence" provisions in the White Paper—obviously the Secretary of State will have to flesh them out a good deal—there is grave concern among many private enterprise concerns that the Government intend the BNOC to have a monopoly of the British stake in the North Sea.

That is not the case initially. Certainly the corporation will take charge of whatever participation can be negotiated in existing licences. It will be the Government's agent when we take participation in future licences, and I envisage that it may well have licences in its own right, but that will probably take time.

With regard to the electricity industry, is not the present situation in which we have a board responsible for generation and other boards responsible for distribution a most unsatisfactory way of running the industry? Will my right hon. Friend consider the unification of the industry?

Certainly over the last four months we have been busy on coal industry policy, North Sea oil and gas policy, and nuclear policy. I hope that in the months ahead I shall be able to turn my attention to some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement of policy on the availability to the public sector of natural gas to be landed at St. Fergus.

Gas from the Frigg field will be landed at St. Fergus. All of this gas will be supplied to the British Gas Corporation, which will dispose of it in accordance with its marketing policy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in relation to the gas to be landed at the Cruden Bay area there was an agreement between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Petroleum, which was vetoed by the British Gas Corporation? In his consideration of access to natural gas, will he undertake to make sure that some nationalised industries are not favoured over others and that natural gas is available for use for the generation of electricity where appropriate?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that no Scottish power station is at present equipped to burn natural gas. However, this is a matter which falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will take all factors into account in taking decisions on these matters in the future.

Is the Minister aware that he is paying well below the market price for Frigg gas at 2·3 pence per therm? If it runs out of availability by 1979–80, where will it come from if he is not prepared to escalate the price?

The Government are confident that there will be adequate supplies of gas in the foreseeable future.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken by the Government to promote conservation of fuel and energy following the Rothschild Report on the energy situation.

In a recent public speech I outlined the Government's programme for action. It covers a wide cross-section of energy consumption, such as industry, building design and construction, energy efficiency in the public sector, and motor vehicles, as well as research and development and international co-operation. This is just a beginning, and the Government's aim is to build up a long-term programme which can be sustained over the years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great need for action in the short term in this respect? In America and other countries there are intensive campaigns by Governments to educate people about the seriousness of the fuel situation and the need for conservation and adaptation. No action seems to be being taken by the present Government in this respect. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this immediately?

Certainly we want to turn our attention to this matter as quickly as possible. I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. He will know that we have set up an Energy Advisory Council, under an independent chairman. I hope to get the other members appointed fairly quickly, so that work can begin.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of the Rothschild Report, the discovery of oil around our coasts is the biggest boost that the British economy has received for a very long time? Does he further agree that there would be grave resentment in the country if there were any intention on the part of the Government to sell out our oil interests in order to gain some paltry concessions in the renegotiation of the terms of entry to the Common Market?

There is no intention of selling our interests in the North Sea.

Do the Goverment accept the EEC's target for conservation of a 10 per cent. saving of energy by 1985? If so, how do they intend to achieve it?

We intend to achieve it by the programme which I outlined in my speech on 26th June. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of studying that speech. If he does not have a copy, I shall send him one.

Apart from the conservation issue as such, what is the exact standing of the Rothschild Report—which is an interesting report, although many think it to be somewhat eccentric?

I do not think that it is an eccentric report. It is an extremely good one, which contains many valuable suggestions. I think that the Government should be given credit, because this is the first time that a Central Policy Review Staff document has been published.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current and prospective rates of productivity in the coal industry.

Output per manshift overall was 43·8 cwt in June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Coal Board is at present able to supply only about 85 per cent. of the total coal requirements of the British Steel Corporation? Is this not a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the factors that make for the rather disappointing levels of current productivity? In particular, does he think that if we could get away from the centralised wage structure, which was the unhappy legacy of Lord Robens, there might be some better prospects?

One of the reasons why output has been disappointing is the delays in development work during last year's industrial trouble. On the ques- tion of getting away from centralised wage bargaining, I understand that the NCB and the mining unions consider that appropriate incentive schemes could make a major contribution to productivity.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the wage award that has been made to the National Union of Mineworkers has not produced an increase in productivity? In view of that, will he initiate talks between the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers with the intention of producing this incentive of a new pay structure?

I understand that discussions between the NCB and the mining unions are at a developed stage. On the question of working up the productivity scheme, I am confident, as they are, that productivity can be improved in the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no productivity scheme which will endanger the safety of men working in the mines will be embarked upon? Does he accept that there is a danger that if we disregard safety in a blind attempt to seek productivity there may be a lowering of safety standards?

I am confident that the NCB and the mining unions are interested in maintaining a high level of safety within the industry. I feel sure that they would not embark on any productivity scheme which would endanger lives.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy why he wishes the use of gas to be calculated in metric units rather than cubic feet.

There are no plans to change from registration of gas consumed in cubic feet to metric volume.

May I, then, ask what are the meanings of Statutory Instruments Nos. 847 and 848, as they say that accounts may be rendered in metric units rather than cubic feet? Is this something to do with integration in the Common Market? If so, why has this happened—in view of the Labour Party manifesto—before we have had the result of the referendum? Or is it to do with the world-shattering draft directive of the Common Market which proposes to harmonise the scales of charges for the testing of gas meters?

The regulations to which the hon. Gentleman refers are designed to facilitate the use of meters registering in metric units and to remove any barrier to trade in gas meters between EEC countries. The important point is that they do not affect British gas industry plans.

Will the Minister assure the House that there is no going beyond the terms of the White Paper on metrication issued by the previous Government after a lot of pressure from their back benchers?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As things stand, British Gas has no plans to change to metric-reading meters.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the considerations he will take into account when he makes his decision as to whether to permit the building of the oil-fired power station at Millbrook to go ahead.

We shall be concerned with all relevant considerations, including the estimated total requirements of the Central Electricity Generating Board for new generating capacity, the requirements for power in the South-West of England, the available sites including Millbrook, Inswork Point, which have been or may be found suitable for power stations, and financial and fuel policy considerations.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is now grave doubt about the accuracy of the forecasts made when the decision in principle was made to go ahead, and that they are likely to be in a downward direction? If a power station is proved to be necessary, will the hon. Gentleman consider nuclear power rather than the use of oil?

My right hon. Friend has made a statement about nuclear power. There was a full public inquiry into this aspect. The Department has asked the CEGB to review all its capital investment plans in the light of the Government's decision on nuclear reactor choice and other considerations. I cannot anticipate the outcome of that review as it may affect particular stations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what loans the European Community is making to the National Coal Board towards expenditure on powered roof supports.

The board has been offered two ECSC loans to finance the purchase of powered roof supports. One is of 10 million dollars at 8¼ per cent. repayable in March 1979, and the other of 15 million dollars at 9¼ per cent. repayable in May 1982.

Will the Minister ensure that this helpful EEC loan, as the National Coal Board itself has described it, will not be renegotiated—unless it be, perhaps, to increase it?

The question of the loan and any renegotiation are matters for Treasury approval. So far as I am aware, the Treasury is likely to give approval.

What on earth is wrong with our own credit facilities? Why must we use the EEC as a banker instead of using our own facilities?

Apparently the financial terms are fairly satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to cease the practice of demanding security deposits from their customers.

No, Sir. The boards have a statutory right to demand security.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will cause considerable concern to my constituents, some of whom face demands for deposits ranging from £15 to £30, or about one-third of the estimated consumption of electricity, and that the manner in which the system is operated by the East Midlands Electricity Board means that if a customer is articulate, stubborn and preferably has a bank account, the demand for a deposit will be waived, but that poorer people who have every intention of paying their electricity bills but cannot raise a deposit are precisely those from whom the deposit is demanded? Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will investigate the criteria used by the East Midlands Electricity Board in assessing the need for a deposit and any cases where hardship is caused by this system?

It is a matter for the board's own commercial judgment as to how it should operate in accordance with its statutory powers. The board works in conjunction with the related consultative councils. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases which he wishes to draw to my attention, I shall be happy to look into them.

if the hon. Gentleman will not accept the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), will he at least insist that this practice should not be carried on on a discriminatory basis? Will he give a direction that security deposits, if demanded from anybody, should be demanded from all new customers and not merely from those who are likely to find it most difficult to pay them?

As I explained to my hon. Friend, we have no statutory power to do what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I have said that there are consultative councils that work in conjunction with the boards in the areas. As I said to my hon. Friend also, if the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases that he wants to draw to my attention, I shall be delighted to receive details.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy on renationalisation of assets hived off from the National Coal Board, in cases where these have been closed down.

As I have told my hon. Friend in reply to earlier Questions, we shall consider what action is needed in the light of the outcome of our examination of the future rôle of the coal industry. This must have priority in our work.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the brickworks which were sold by the National Coal Board to private enterprise in accordance with the doctrinaire policies of the previous Government were profit-making bodies and that they have now been closed? Is it not a disgrace that assets such as the Whittlesey Central Brick Company should be dissipated? Does it not indicate that there is a much greater need for urgency about renationalising these assets if we are to be able to have them back into the hands of public ownership before they are completely gone?

My hon. Friend is right. Hiving off was one aspect of the previous administration's policy. They hived off the assets that my hon. Friend has mentioned. My hon. Friend will agree that it is very important that we carry out the examination into the mining industry. We want to get that examination right first. No doubt we shall then come to the question that my hon. Friend has raised.

As the hon. Gentleman is hiving off the assets of the National Coal Board in the North Sea, may we expect to see the end of all the argument about the hiving-off of assets?

I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is stretching credibility too far to suggest that hiving off from one public industry to another public industry is equivalent to hiving off from the public sector to the private sector. If the hon. Gentleman was espousing a new philosophy from the Front Bench, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall very interested to take note of it.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what pi ogress she has made in her discussions in the EEC Council of Development Ministers on obtaining a world-wide approach to the distribution of aid.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement concerning the recent meeting of EEC Overseas Aid Ministers.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about the proposed EEC contribution towards the special United Nations Fund for developing countries worst hit by the oil crisis.

The Development Council that met on 16th July took three important steps. It agreed in principle to financial aid from the Community to non-associated States and it asked the Commission to complete its draft aid framework. I hope and believe that the concept of distributing aid according to need, both within and outside association, is beginning to take root. Thirdly, the Development Council agreed, at my suggestion, to meet again in September to try to reach a decision on the release of the Community's contribution to the United Nations emergency measures. I told the Council that although I thought a Community response would be more effective it was essential that our own contribution should begin to flow by the autumn, if necessary on a bilateral basis. In my view, the urgency of the need will not permit further delay.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on pressing upon Community Ministers the need to base aid on the criterion of need and not on quirks of history or geography? Will she continue to press that the maximum amount be devoted to international agencies and not on the Common Market special association basis?

As I think my hon. Friend will know, I aim to achieve approximately a 50–50 breakdown of Community aid. It was good to have the resolution on aid to non-associates, but I stress that this nevertheless gives us only a starting point for the real negotiations that I have in mind.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the emphasis which she places on spreading aid more on a world-wide basis than solely to associate States will be welcome to this side of the House, because it is continuing an emphasis which the previous administration established from our entry into the Community and, indeed, as far back as October 1972? Now that the EEC has agreed in principle, as I understand it, to provide 500 million dollars of aid to the developing countries which are most severely hit, will the right hon. Lady bend her efforts to persuading other members of the United Nations to play their part?

Yes. The virtue of the Community contribution is that, if we can achieve it, it will ensure the maximum contribution from the other European members of the Community. That is why I prefer that as the way of making our contribution. Nevertheless, I think that it is true that there are a number of hurdles to be overcome before we reach that position. One of those is the extent to which other States are prepared to play their part.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging statement. Did the Ministers discuss the European Development Fund? If they did, did she draw their attention to a certain disequilibrium in the grants within that fund, as noted by the last Parliament's Select Committee on Overseas Aid?

One of my problems in this area is that in a sense one is operating in two arenas of renegotiation. One is the European Council of Development Ministers; the other is the whole area of negotiation concerning Protocol 22 and the European Development Fund. I expect to be in Jamaica later this week on Protocol 22 and European Development Fund matters. These are at an early stage, and it is not possible to envisage exactly how the discussions will develop.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she is taking to give special assistance to developing countries severely affected by the increase in oil prices.

My hon. Friend will be aware that we hope to make our main response to the emergency needs of the oil-poor developing countries through the EEC contribution of 500 million dollars to the special programme of the United Nations. This, however, is conditional on other responses. I told the Council of Development Ministers in Brussels last week that if the EEC contribution has not begun to flow by the early autumn, we shall wish to ensure that our own does so, in the light of the extreme urgency of the needs which are arising.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we can make efforts on our own without being tied to any part of the EEC? Bearing in mind that, to a degree, many of the oil-producing countries are, or have been, developing countries, we, as a generous nation in the past, have the right to point out to them on a unilateral basis—as Great Britain speaking to them—that they ought to make special concessions to the developing countries, which can be hit very hard by increases in oil prices.

May I take separately the two points which my hon. Friend has raised? First, on the question of the Arab contribution, there is certainly a lack of clarity about the present Arab position. On the one hand, we have the United Nations Special Programme and, on the other, a number of bilateral responses which the Arab nations have been making. Indeed, it is imperative that by the September meeting of the EEC Development Council we have a very clear understanding of the relative contributions made in various forums, from the Arab nations and others. I have asked that that should be done, and I think it will be done in September.

Will the right hon. Lady say whether she herself has made any specific approaches to the Arab countries and, if so, what has been the response?

No, I have not, although I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have contemplated doing so in the last month or so. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there have been a number of almost fortnightly meetings of various international bodies, in some of which the Arabs were involved. There was, for example, a meeting a week ago in New York at which the Arabs were present, when it was hoped that a clear position would emerge. But between the World Bank, the Developing Assistance Committee and the United Nations, there have been so many opportune moments to get the matter clearer that I have hesitated to make any direct initiatives, although I do not rule them out.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the happenings at the last Organisation of African Unity conference in Mogadishu and say whether this is one of the chief causes of the dissension about the appointment of the Secretary-General? The Arab States have not pulled their weight here. Will my right hon. Friend—as she was asked a few moments ago—in some way intercede with the Arab States, with which we have some influence, to do something in this field for the developing nations of the Third World, namely, the black States?

I think that I should mention the other aspect of this matter—the Witteveen proposal for the recycling of money, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely involved. At this moment it is a very delicate decision as to how much one should take bilateral initiatives and how far one should rest on the United Nations and the other procedures which are continuing. I certainly do not rule out independent approaches, and there are one or two other donor countries which feel as I do.

The right hon. Lady will be aware that a Select Committee of the House is considering this matter. Will she undertake that when she receives that Committee's report she will respond to it more quickly than she has been able to respond to the earlier report of the Select Committee considering overseas development, in the light of Britain's membership of the Community? Furthermore, will she say whether her Department has considered whether there is a rôle for private capital and private investment in assisting the developing countries most badly hit by the oil crisis to reach higher standards of development?

On the last point, I hope to be able to make my own position clear before too long.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the policy of her Department in respect of landing charges on military aircraft flying trucks and medical supplies to famine-stricken countries.

The Governments of famine-stricken countries are expected to waive all landing charges in respect of British military aircraft which carry relief supplies, and wherever possible they are asked formally to declare their intention to do so before airlifting of any supplies takes place.

The hon. Gentleman says that they are expected to do so. Have they, in fact, done so? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no Government to which famine supplies are being shipped are trying to make a profit by imposing landing charges on those supplies?

I can certainly give that assurance. One of our problems is that of having to deal with journalists who go to disaster areas to write critical stories from the security of the most expensive hotel. That is what happened in Ethiopia. We have paid no landing charges at all on any military aircraft carrying supplies, and we have no intention of doing so.

Is not the direct flying in of medical and food assistance to areas stricken by famine the most effective form of aid that the United Kingdom is in a position to give? In that case, is the Minister satisfied with the situation in which the greater part of our aid to any country goes to India—a country that has embarked not only on a nuclear programme for military purposes but, indeed, if recent Press reports are to be credited, on a major rocket programme?

That is a separate question. On the first part of the supplementary question, wherever we see starving children we shall attempt to bring them whatever help we can regardless of the internal politics of any country, whether it is Left or Right, military or non-military. We think that is our first responsibility.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the extent of the involvement of the Crown Agents in property speculation.

The Crown Agents have made investments and loans in connection with the development of property over a number of years. I hope to make a statement on the structure of the Crown Agents very shortly, which will also cover related matters.

Has the Minister noticed that over the last year or so many companies engaged in property speculation in this country have gone broke or nearly broke? They have been in financial difficulties. Is she further aware that in many of those cases it has transpired that money, either on a loan basis or on an equity basis, or both, has flowed from the Crown Agents into those companies? Will she give an assurance that she will soon issue new guidelines to the Crown Agents about the kind of activities which they ought to avoid?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I intend to make a statement before the recess, and when I do so it will include the type of guidelines which I would expect the Crown Agents to observe. It will also include mention of their property investments.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the size of British Executive Service Overseas; how much of its money comes from Government sources; and how many executives it has sent abroad in comparison with equivalent organisations in the United States and Canada.

The British Executive Service Overseas—a joint enterprise between private industry and Her Majesty's Government started as a pilot scheme in 1972—has a staff of five. Within an agreed maximum, 50 per cent. of the reasonable expenses of operating the scheme is met from Government sources.

Is there not an extraordinary contrast between our programme and those of Canada and the United States? May we have an assurance that the Government have no plans to reduce their programme, or even to terminate it, as has been rumoured? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme creates good will and helps the developing countries to increase their trading potential, and that from it there is a marvellous spin-off for British firms? Will the Minister take a more positive approach to the scheme?

We are doing just that. The figures I gave were those laid down by the previous Government. This year we shall be reaching a figure of 24 executives, and we hope that it will increase in future years.