asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's energy conservation programme, specifying long-term targets and objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the energy-saving campaign; and what further steps he is taking.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the success of the energy-saving campaign; and if he will make a statement.

There is evidence that substantial savings are being made in many areas, and that progress is being made in changing attitudes towards the use of energy. There is, however, a great deal more that consumers can economically do to save energy, and the objective of the Government's ongoing energy conservation campaign is to seek to realise these savings.

I acknowledge that the limited success of the advertising campaign is already wearing off, but is not it really time that the Government put forward their longer-term strategy for energy conservation, setting out specific targets? In particular, would not it make better sense, instead of spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on nationalising the oil interests in the North Sea, to reallocate some of those funds to productive energy conservation measures?

The hon. Gentleman made a very constructive contribution in a debate in this House on energy conservation. I rather regret that he is not so constructive in his questioning, when he brings in other matters in relation to energy conservation. I refute his suggestion that the energy conservation campaign is starting to lose steam and that there are no results from it. There are many individual case histories showing that industrial firms, local authorities, and so on, are taking energy savings very seriously and are achieving good results.

As definite targets are always the most effective way of achieving savings, will the Minister tell us what specific targets he has set, first for central Government and, secondly, for local government? If he has not set definite targets, is not it time that he did?

Those questions have already been answered in the House, but, if I may refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory, we have said that if a 10 per cent. saving were achieved, it would amount to about £700 million. We have also said that in the long term about £10 million is being spent by Government Departments and the nationalised industries on energy saving research. Details are contained in recent evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

In view of the enormous saving of energy equivalent which would come from the greater use of diesel engines, will my hon. Friend indicate whether he is trying to speed up the discussions with the automotive industry, on which he has been engaged for some time, so that those who have to make investment decisions about diesel engine production can get on with that job?

From time to time we have said that we are not proud concerning help on any energy conservation measures, but, dealing with my hon. Friend's question, we shall await the result of any representation with a great deal of interest.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that home insulation is one of the most effective ways of saving energy? Is he further aware that his Department's efforts to promote home insultation are being frustrated by an obstructive attitude on the part of the Department of the Environment? Will he try to sort that out, bearing in mind that the cavity wall insulation industry is now running at about 30 per cent. of its maximum capacity?

The right hon. Gentleman put two questions. First, as to the Government's trying to frustrate any insulation measures, I am afraid that this is not borne out by the facts. I am advised by the industry concerned with insulation that it is overburdened with orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy at what rate Her Majesty's Government proposes to deplete the resources of the North Sea.

The rate of depletion for both oil and gas will be such as to secure the greatest benefit to Britain's economy. The primary aim for oil is to eliminate net imports as quickly as possible.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his answer says nothing? Does he agree with the previous Secretary of State, who told a meeting of mineworkers in November last year that it carried with it the guarantee of room in the market for competitive coal? Does he intend so to manipulate his depletion policy for oil as to suit the nation or the mineworkers?

Our depletion policy for oil will be geared to a proper and sensible use of a finite resource. This Government inherited no depletion controls whatever. In the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill we are seeking authority from Parliament to have depletion controls. It is necessary to have depletion controls if we are to have a depletion policy. The hon. Gentleman's Government had neither.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there should be other considerations in the rate of extraction than getting money to set against the British balance of payments? What consideration will his Ministry give to the suggestion of the Shah of Persia that this resource should no longer be used for heating purposes?

The objective of our depletion policy strategy will take into account not only the economic needs of the country in imports but also the best long-term use of a finite resource. In the short term it makes sense to eliminate the requirement to import oil. I understand that the Scottish National Party wishes to drop it even further—to 50 million tons a year. It has no sense of responsibility towards the construction industry in Scotland, which would be desolated if that policy were carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for discussions on North Sea oil production with his EEC counterparts.

Production from the United Kingdom North Sea is a matter for the Government, but I shall obviously be keeping my European colleagues informed of the Government's plans for reducing dependence en imported oil.

When the right hon. Gentleman has further discussions with his counterparts in the EEC, will he take the opportunity to give them the answer I would like him to give us today to a question which he himself put at a Tribune Group rally in Glasgow on 13th April, when he asked whether the Commission would assume control of the rate of depletion of North Sea oil and gas, whether the Treaty of Rome would be applied to the Continental Shelf, and, if so, precisely what powers would this give to the Commission?

The House will have noticed that when I attended the Energy Council meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday I made it clear that I interpreted my function as being constructive as a member of the council, but defending our national interest. I believe that to be correct. We are by far the richest energy source among the nine countries in the Community, in terms not only of oil but of coal, and I would expect, therefore, to consider any proposals that might have an impact upon our power to control our own resources, with a view to seeing that our national interest is safeguarded.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in detail the implications of the draft European energy directive, particularly in view of the rate of exploitation of Scotland's major resource, oil? Is he aware that the directive speaks in terms of 180 million tons per annum and the Government of 110 million tons per annum, while we in the Scottish National Party want to see 50 million tons per annum and a reduced rate of exploitation? Is he further aware that the rate of exploitation proposed is totally unacceptable to the people of Scotland, who are seeing their birthright sold out by a British Government who have no concern for them?

The hon. Lady has raised a number of questions—one in particular that was not on the Order Paper. I say this in reply—and I think I will carry her assent: the issues involved in any energy policy formulation, either here or in the Community, are of such importance and are usually so complex that there is a great deal to be said in favour of maximum openness, so that everyone is able to know what is proposed before decisions of any kind are reached.

Has my right hon. Friend any information about the costs of North Sea oil when it is delivered into Great Britain? If he has any assessment of the cost, will he say how they compare with the costs of the oil that we import from the Middle East? What effect does he think British oil will have on the European economy?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that relative costs depend on a number of factors, which it is not always easy to forecast. It depends upon the oil price from the OPEC countries and the experience we have or acquire about the cost of getting the oil out of the North Sea. However, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept as fully informed as possible. Such figures as are available were published in the Brown Book.

With reference to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) does the Secretary of State now concede that he was quite wrong about the question of EEC control over the rate of depletion and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the rest of us were right?

I do not think it would be sensible to reopen the referendum argument. Moreover, the House would be very foolish if it supposed that our interests in North Sea oil were automatically safeguarded and did not require the vigilance of British Ministers of whatever party was in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the amount of oil which the United Kingdom will obtain from the North Sea over the next five years; and what is the estimated cost of that oil, as compared with the cost of oil imported from overseas.

Between now and the end of 1980 we expect total oil production from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf to amount to between 300 million and 350 million tons. Using the latest valuation for similar oil currently imported, the cost at current prices in national resources of importing this quantity would be between £l1 billion and £14 billion (thousand million). On the same basis, the cost of production could be in the region of half the import cost, though, because a large share of this will be in respect of domestic resources, the benefit to the balance of payments will be very much larger than half the import cost.

Does the Minister agree that the country needs a timely reminder that the supply of oil from the North Sea will not provide an automatic bonanza for the British people?

I think that my Government colleagues and I, and many other hon. Members, are acutely aware and constantly remind the public of that fact. On the other hand, we cannot underestimate the importance of North Sea oil. It will be one of the features which will put this country in a position of energy self-sufficiency in the 1980s, and in that respect we shall be unique in Western Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total amount awarded under the recent legislation and to how many persons, to the latest available date, in respect of the deaths of miners who suffered pneumoconiosis.

The pneumoconiosis compensation scheme is not a statutory scheme but was agreed between the National Coal Board and the mining unions. To date the National Coal Board has made offers of payment totalling £108·4 million in 46,760 cases, and of this about £13 million, in about 14,000 cases, was to widows, dependants or the estates of men who have died.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that detailed answer. In view of what he said and in the light of claims received and under consideration, does he feel that the grant of £100 million referred to in the most recent Coal Industry Act is sufficient, since concern was expressed on both sides of the House that it might not be?

As my hon. Friend knows, this matter was aired fairly extensively on the Floor of the House during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill. However, if my hon. Friend cares to look at the Coal Industry Examination Report, he will see that the Government have honoured their commitment to provide £100 million towards such a scheme. I emphasise that this is not a Government scheme; it is a scheme drawn up between the unions and the National Coal Board.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this scheme was conceived too hurriedly? Although we congatulate the Labour Government on their grant of £100 million, do they not realise that £100 million is not nearly sufficient to cover existing cases? Will my hon. Friend now reconsider the position in relation to commuted cases and give something extra to the widows involved—preand post-1970?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that this was a unique scheme in the business of the House of Commons and contributed substantially to those suffering from pneumoconiosis. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, however, that when we discussed this matter on the Floor of the House, there was no lack of sympathy or concern on the part of the Government, although we had to point out that £100 million was the grant made by the Government for the scheme, that the scheme was one drawn up between the unions and the National Coal Board, and that any alteration to the scheme would require to be negotiated between the parties to it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme has been widely accepted and welcomed by the entire mining industry? Will he consider making representations to his right hon. Friend that some suggestion might be made to both sides of the industry for a slight increase in the price of a ton of coal to all consumers, in order to remedy the shortfall now envisaged and also to take account of the commuted cases?

I am sure that the whole House will have listened to the point by my hon. Friend, in view of his background knowledge of the mining industry. He was right to say that the scheme had received a universal welcome by all those engaged in the mining industry. I can only tell him that since we debated this matter at length his point and those made by other hon. Members will be noted by all those concerned with any increase in or amendment to the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of jobs that will be available in the coal-mining industry by the years 1980 and 1985; and if he will make a statement.

The precise manpower needed will depend on the industry's competitive ability to take advantage of the market opportunities for coal and on realising the necessary advances in productivity. Forward plans are discussed between the National Coal Board and the unions concerned.

In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his new role, may I thank him for the projection that he gave us? However, in areas like the Cannock Chase, where we have very high levels of unemployment, will he consider bringing forward some of the proposed developments in deep mining in order to provide more jobs in the area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall consider the point that he raised, though I am not familiar enough with the discussions which have taken place to know whether the local impact of unemployment has hitherto been a factor in deciding the development work in new mines.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the future of the industry will depend on its ability to compete with other fuels, but does he not agree that there is serious concern about the effectiveness of the incentive scheme, which was tailored to meet the demands of the militants and which is clearly not working, and is leading to a fall in production?

I have taken the opportunity to have preliminary discussions with the National Coal Board and the unions. Without wishing to give offence, I should not regard the Conservative Party as the best adviser on the handling of the problems of the coal industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties associated with the building of the Aberthaw power station and the consequent stocking of coal produced by 10 pits in South Wales? I understand that Didcot imports coal. Cannot my right hon. Friend arrange for some of this coal to be transferred from South Wales pits, otherwise stocks will grow to such an extent that pits will have to stop production?

I am aware of this point. It was raised with me by the Chairman of the National Coal Board and by the National Union of Mineworkers. I also took the opportunity to discuss it with the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board. My hon. Friend knows the reason for it. It is a problem with the 500 MW sets. But I shall look into his suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure in the past financial year by the CEGB on alterations to office accommodation.

This is a matter for the board, and I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that improvements to the London Electricity Board's offices are currently being undertaken at a cost of about £1 million? Is he aware that one executive's office alone is reported already to have cost more than £10,000? Is it too much to ask the Minister to tell the electricity boards that Britain faces a very severe financial crisis and that the office party is over—indeed, that it should not have begun at this time?

I have no knowledge of the information that the hon. Lady gave. However, if she reflects, she will remember that I said that I would like the Chairman of the CEGB to write to her. I am a little confused, however, because her Question was directed specifically to the CEGB, and then she referred to an electricity board.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that the CEGB has no responsibility for the London Electricity Board? Secondly, surely the question of the health and welfare of the staff employed in offices enters into these matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has a knowledge of these matters which is perhaps superior to that of anyone else in the House, and I am grateful for his confirmation of the point I made arising out of the fact that the hon. Lady put down a Question about the CEGB and in her supplementary question referred to electricity boards. I do not know which of us is confused.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Wales, where a considerable volume of electricity is produced, there are very few Central Electricity Generating Board jobs of the organisational kind? Will the Government give consideration to setting up a body in Wales analogous to the South of Scotland Electricity Board so that we can get more organisational jobs in Wales?

Day-to-day administration is the responsibility of the CEGB. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific points to raise, I shall pass them to the board, which may be able to give him the assurances he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that the United Kingdom's long-term supplies of nuclear fuels can be guaranteed, in the light of the implications for such supplies of the political situation in southern Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that Great Britain's future supplies of uranium are secure.

Our nuclear fuel requirements are covered until the early 1980s by existing contracts. British Nuclear Fuels Limited, as agents for the electricity generating boards, is seeking opportunities for further contracts throughout the world to meet requirements beyond this date. We have no reason to think that contracts for supply from southern Africa will not be met.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that 40 per cent. of our contracts are with the South African Government for supply from Namibia, and that the people of Namibia are unhappy about it?

If my hon. Friend is raising the question of the politics of the area, he will have to address his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Irrespective of what administration is in being in Namibia, there is certainly a desire and willingness on the part of its Government to sell uranium to other nations.

Australia is also looking very carefully at her export contracts for uranium. In view of the pressing need for self-sufficiency in energy supplies, has the Department developed a long-term model showing the different sources and different costs of energy over the next generation, in order that we can achieve self-sufficiency?

That is a pertinent question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter has had consideration. He has heard me say many times that the nuclear power industry is not indigenous. We have to import uranium in order to sustain the industry. This is why the fast breeder reactor at Dounreay is significant for Britain, in the sense that we are world leaders in such technology. This is related to ensuring that in the long term we shall have a sufficiency of uranium to sustain our nuclear power industry.

Keeping in mind that the Dounreay reactor is merely a prototype, will my hon. Friend indicate what progress has been made towards a large-scale commercial fast breeder which is also safe?

My hon. Friend is correct in stating that the Dounreay reactor is a prototype. Although we are world leaders in this technology, we are some years away from being able to say that we shall have a commercial breeder reactor, precisely for the reason my hon. Friend mentioned. Safety considerations must come into the matter before we can consider the whole question of a commercial reactor.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fast breeder. What contracts are available for the supply of thorium to the United Kingdom? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend to the Secretary of State that the British National Oil Corporation, like the oil companies, should search abroad for nuclear fuel?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the figures for petrol consumption for the first quarter of 1973, 1974 and 1975, respectively, in the United Kingdom.

Deliveries into consumption of motor spirit in these periods were respectively 3·85, 3·57 and 3·55 million tons.

Do not these figures show that petrol is really no longer to be regarded as a luxury but as an essential? In view of the great hardship that the Government's swingeing tax increases on petrol have caused to many people, particularly those living in the country and relying on the car, will the hon. Gentleman switch the basis of taxation from petrol spirit to crude oil, which would provide a much more equitable basis?

The hon. Gentleman has canvassed this possibility before. Petrol spirit makes up a large part of the consumption of oil in this country. The policy seems to be working, to the extent that consumption is down significantly —8 per cent. as compared with the same period of 1973, against a background of a constant annual increase of 5 per cent. before that. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that if the tax burden is shifted it will fall on other shoulders. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to increase the cost of central heating fuels, for example. If so, he should say so clearly.

Will my hon. Friend advise the Secretary of State to get rid of the nonsense announced by his predecessor about speed limits? The lower the speed limit, the less the consumption of petrol. I find on my journeys to this House that large, mainly foreign, cars are travelling at 100 mph on motorways and dual carriageways when the limit should be 70 and 60 mph, respectively. Will my hon. Friend put the thing right and get rid of that nonsense?

My hon. Friend is asking me to give a reply on a matter on which information is not yet complete. We do not know what effects the changed speed limits have had on the consumption of petrol. It is already complicated by the fact that other factors, such as price, are affecting consumption. But the matter will be kept under review. The speed limits are due for review on 30th November, and in the light of the information we shall be reviewing the policy before then.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of the nationalised industries within his responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the gas and electricity industries.

I plan to have regular meetings with the chairmen both collectively and individually. I met the Chairman of the National Coal Board on 17th June, the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation on 19th June, and the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board on 24th June, and I expect to be meeting the Chairman of the Electricity Council very soon.

That very impressive list shows that my right hon. Friend is working even harder than usual. When he meets the Chairman of the National Coal Board will he emphasise the anomalies in the compensation scheme for pneumoconiosis—which has already been referred to by some of my hon. Friends—so far as they affect widows? If the chairman of the coal board is in any doubt about the way in which the scheme discriminates against widows, will my right hon. Friend tell him about a constituent of mine whose 56-year-old husband died before 1970, from 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis, and received the miserly sum of £300? Will my right hon. Friend see what he can do about that dreadful anomaly?

My hon. Friend may have heard an answer that was given earlier today, namely, that this matter has been raised with us on a number of occasions. It was raised by the National Union of Mineworkers when its representatives came to see me. I put it to the union, during the discussions, that these and other matters might best be handled in a resumed tripartite discussion, although in saying so I was unable to go beyond the £100 million arrangement reached when the last tripartite discussions were completed last year. However, I am aware of the anomalies of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider meeting the chairmen of the water authorities and exhorting them, when planning new reservoirs, to conserve energy by selecting sites where the natural head of water will feed the system rather than low-lying sites which have to use fuel for pumping?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a good point, but before I undertake those onerous duties, which may not even fall within my departmental responsibilities. I should like to give further consideration to what he suggested.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of th., Electricity Council, which he said he will do shortly, will he draw his attention to and reinforce the fact that about 40,000 families will be without an electricity supply tonight? Will he ask the Electricity Council if it will take some action at least in the spirit of the Ten-Minute Bill that I introduced some months ago?

When I meet the Chairman of the Electricity Council I undertake to brief myself on the point made by my hon. Friend and shall ensure that the matter comes up in the discussions I have with him.

In view of the anxiety caused by the disastrous relationship between the former Secretary of State for Industry and the British Steel Corporation, will the right hon. Gentleman now assure us and the nationalised industries that, so far as his new responsibilities are concerned, his policy will be to allow them maximum commercial managerial freedom with a minimum of day-to-day ministerial intervention?

I very much hope to enjoy the same relations of cordiality and trust that I sought to establish between those who work in the nationalised industries for which I was responsible. Moreover, I hope that in my relations with the chairmen of the nationalised industries, the need to maintain a good working relationship with the people who work in the industry will be widely shared and accepted.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many general directions to chairmen of nationalised industries he issued in the last week.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the fullest confidence of all those who work in the Post Office? Is he further aware that those of us with interests in the energy industries will be looking to him to ensure that management gives workers a rightful say in the running of those industries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Without in any way interfering with the day-to-day management of the industries concerned, one of the greatest development roles to be performed is that of moving towards greater self-management. I hope to encourage that by discussions with the unions in the energy industries, as I did when I was at the Department of Industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that another and larger group concerned with the energy industries consists of the consumers? In his relationships with the chairmen of these industries, will he take the view that it is not proper and, indeed, not seemly for him to be seen going along with his Department's line of bleating lamely about commercial freedom and tugging at the skirts of the industries when a case is now being overwhelmingly made for the provision of an adequate level of energy to all homes being regarded as a social and public good and not as a matter of commercial freedom, dictated solely by commercial considerations?

Yes, but I did not say that, as my hon. Friend will see when he reads Hansard. I said:

"Without in any way interfering with the day-to-day management".

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average unit cost of electricity generated by oil-fired, coal-fired, hydro-electric and nuclear power stations, respectively.

I understand from the Central Electricity Generating Board that for 1974–75 the average generation costs of Central Electricity Generating Board power stations commissioned in the last 12 years were as follows:

0·74p per kilowatt-hour at coal-fired stations,

0·88p per kilowatt-hour at oil-fired stations,

0·48p per kilowatt-hour at nuclear stations.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the coal miners of this country—particularly the miners of Stir! ingshire, who work on the Long Gannet project—that coal will be required as a fuel for generating electricity and for other purposes for many years to come, even after we become self-sufficient in oil, and even taking into account the planned development of nuclear power stations?

Such an assurance was presented to the House in the coal industry examination. I certainly advise my hon. Friend to recommend it to any of his constituents who are in any doubt about the future role that coal will play in energy provision in this country.

When answering an earlier Question on the Order Paper the Secretary of State spoke of the need for maximum openness in energy matters. On the question of costs will the Minister consider changing the practice whereby his Department refuses to answer parliamentary Questions requesting details of the uranium prices in Government contracts?

I understand the question that has been put by the hon. Gentleman, but there is a certain amount of con- fusion in it, because this is a commercial matter. Indeed, one of his hon. Friends recently spoke about letting industry get on with its job without governmental interference. There is confusion on both sides of the House as to what is a commercial matter.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the figure for nuclear power stations was 0·48p, which is markedly below that for oil-fired and gas-fired stations? Will he state whether that takes account of any revaluation of the assets of nuclear stations compared with coal-fired or oil-fired stations? Finally, is he able to give any more up-to-date figures in view of the changed pattern of both capital and operating costs in the current year?

My hon. Friend has raised an issue about which there has been great controversy in this House over the last 10 years or so, to my knowledge. The figures that I gave were supplied by the CEGB. Matters about depreciation, costs, and so on are still controversial. However, I have given the best known figures available. No doubt my hon. Friend will want to study the reply that I have given, which is based on information from the CEGB.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has yet made a decision concerning the acquisition of the British Petroleum shares at present held by the Bank of England.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now make a statement on the Government's policy with respect to the public sector's recently acquired 70 per cent. stake in British Petroleum.

As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 24th February, the question of the BP shareholding is still under consideration. In reaching our decision we shall need to take full account of the national interest.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British Petroleum has effectively been in public ownership for over six months and that the Government have been prevented from exercising any control over that company because of the division of ownership between the Government and the Bank of England? Before the Bank of England is permitted to dispose of the former Burmah shares on the open market, will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of taking British Petroleum into public ownership, as the basis for the British National Oil Corporation, rather than expecting the BNOC to operate in complete isolation from the rest of the oil industry?

Without prejudice to the latter question, which is on a quite different matter, I can assure my hon. Friend that the decision about these shares will be a Government decision and that it will not be taken without regard to our national interest, as best we can identify it.

What benefit does the Secretary of State expect to reap if he decides to take the Burmah holding on behalf of the Government?

That is a much wider question. Clearly, the Government's holding in BP, which goes back over many years, provides for the nation an important holding in an important industry which is becoming even more important as time goes by. I could not debate such a very wide matter of long established public policy in answer to a supplementary question.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that, bearing in mind all the implications of the international role of that company, it may be useful for it to demonstrate that it possesses a real measure of independence?

I recognise that fact. That was made clear in the original exchange of letters between the Treasury and the company at the time that the Government's holding was first acquired.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about the latest meeting between development Ministers of the EEC.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about the latest meeting between development Ministers of the EEC.

My right hon. Friend is pressing for the next meeting to take place on the earliest possible date.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when the development Ministers last met? If I am right in thinking that they have not met for three months, is that not rather regrettable, bearing in mind that they have before them some important proposals for improving the balance of Community aid in favour of the Commonwealth countries of South Asia—a matter which was agreed in principle as long ago as December 1972? Will the hon. Gentleman see that an early meeting takes place?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last meeting of the development Ministers was in January. We are pressing for a meeting this month. With the changeover in the presidency of the Community from Ireland to Italy on 1st July, I do not think that it will be possible to have a meeting before the Heads of Government meeting on 15th July. However, we are pressing for it as early as possible.

Is the question of Community aid to Mozambique on the agenda?

Because Mozambique is not yet a member of the Lomé Convention—although I think it likely that it will become a member—it is not, as I understand it, on the agenda.

Will the Minister ask the European Economic Community to extend the provisions of the Lomé Convention to cover developing countries of the Commonwealth in Asia? Will he also tell us why Asian countries of the Commonwealth are discriminated against in favour of African, Caribbean and Pacific developing countries, so that very often some of the poorest countries in the world have their traditional exports to Europe jeopardised? What action will the Government take to put right that injustice?

It is Government policy, and has been for some time, to press for aid to the non-associates to be conceded by the Community. In Rome last week I was somewhat critical of the action taken by the Council of Ministers in not supporting the Commission's proposals on increasing food aid, most of which would undoubtedly have gone to the countries that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

My hon. Friend may have noticed that in last Thursday's Written Answers, in col. 188. the Prime Minister appointed the Foreign Secretary as notional Minister for Overseas Development. Will he now assure the House that when the development Ministers of the EEC meet it will be the Minister for Overseas Development, namely, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) or the Parliamentary Secretary himself who will attend, and not my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)?

I can certainly give that assurance. Perhaps I may add that my right hon. Friend apologises to the House for not being here today, but he is attending an important meeting of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD in Paris. That is the reason for his absence. [Interruption.] It is a terribly important meeting. I hope that the House will understand that there is no question of my right hon. Friend's being a notional Minister for anything.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will take steps to increase the amount of aid given to Sri Lanka.

A new pledge of £8 million capital aid was made at the Sri Lanka Aid Group meeting held in Paris in April. This compares with pledges of £1 million in 1973 and £3 million in 1974.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the disgusting exploitation of labour that goes on in Sri Lanka, leading to degrading and inhuman conditions for tea plantation workers and their families? Will my hon. Friend take immediate steps to provide more aid bearing in mind that although Sri Lanka is one of the poorest countries in the world and is a member of the Commonwealth, she is excluded from the list of 46 countries which receive priority aid under the Common Market Lomé Convention?

I have already dealt with the question of aid to non-associates. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to press hard on that matter. I The issue of the tea estates is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and, as the House knows, he is pursuing that matter actively.

Is the hon. Gentleman sure that any aid given to Sri Lanka is distributed so that the benefits are enjoyed by everyone, including the large numbers of stateless Tamils in the country?

There are difficulties about the distribution of aid. Our aim is to try to ensure that aid goes to the poorest people in the poorest countries, and, in particular, into rural development, which may benefit particularly the people whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind. But it is difficult for us to be sure. In the end it is very much a matter for the Government of Sri Lanka.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has to pay official visits to overseas countries.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has to pay official visits to overseas countries.

My right hon. Friend is attending the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD today. He has at present no firm plans for official visits to overseas countries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary R of State has a fine record for helping underdeveloped countries, but that there is a national tendency for all Governments to cut overseas aid in times of economic crisis? Will my hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that underdeveloped countries do not become a major casualty because of cuts that may be announced at any time now?

I am sure that the Secretary of State has an excellent record in this matter, but I think my hon. Friend probably meant the Minister for Overseas Development. I assure my hon. Friend that should this sort of situation arise—we hope it will not—both my right hon. Friend and I will do all that we can to fulfil the kind of policies that he wants to see carried out.

Will the hon. Gentleman press his right hon. Friend the Minister to pay a visit to Palestinian refugee camps in the Middle East and then persuade his European colleagues to increase the amount of European aid to help these poor people, who are in a terrible plight, as we all know?

I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope shortly to visit not these camps but the headquarters of the United Nations Refugee Organisation.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he intends to maintain the priorities established in Government overseas aid policies of concentrating aid on the poorest countries in the world and the poorest sectors of those countries.

Yes, Sir.

I very much welcome that assurance. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the issue of overseas aid, particularly to the poorest people in the world, is one area in which moderation is considerably less important than Socialist solutions to these problems?

I am glad that my hon. Friend approves my answer. I assure him that we shall pursue that policy. Indeed, perhaps I may tell him that it was pursued in Rome last week, when we were able to announce to the World Food Council that we would give an extra 100,000 tons of fertilisers to the most seriously affected countries. That is about another £15 million worth of fertilisers. That was welcomed, and it is a positive sign that we are fulfilling the kind of policies that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in these countries it is also very important to encourage private investment, which provides jobs and food just as surely as do any Socialist solutions?

I doubt very much whether they do it as surely. It is primarily a matter for private industry, but when we can facilitate this sort of arrangement we do so.

Will my hon. Friend make strong representations to aid the developing Countries through the EEC by getting rid of some of the food mountains which exist in spite of the referendum? Meat is going rotten, and there are 400,000 tons of skimmed milk. That is the kind of vital protein food that is needed for the underdeveloped countries. Will my hon. Friend make these representations urgently?

A considerable quantity of skimmed milk has been sent to the developing countries, but this comes back to what I said earlier—that we are pressing for a general increase in food aid in line with the Commission's proposals. I hope that when the Ministers meet again to discuss this subject we shall get a more positive response.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of our bilateral aid is now going to the least developed countries? If he cannot answer that question without notice, will he let me know in due course?

I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know. I should not like to give a positive answer now.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what effect there has been on the exports of beef from Botswana, permitted under the Lomé Convention, of the recent beef levies applied by the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Botswana Government have estimated that in the three months following the resumption of beef exports to the United Kingdom in March of this year, under the provisions agreed at Lomé, the payment of Community levies, amounting to about £1 million, has reduced receipts from sales to the United Kingdom market by 46 per cent.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm two points—first, that the arrangement initiated by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last week at the Council of Ministers was decided upon in the teeth of sustained French opposition and, secondly, that the Government regard the arrangement that was then concluded as providing a valuable precedent for the progressive liberalisation of the provisions of the CAP?

I cannot confirm either of those points. I have no official information about what happened in the Council of Ministers' meeting.

It is in the Financial Times.

I am sure it is a good source, and it is probably right, but I do not have the information officially. I can, however, tell the House that the Botswana Government are satisfied with the arrangement that has been made. I think that that confirms the necessity of having a British Minister at the negotiat- ing table on behalf of the developing countries.

If the import levy is to be replaced by an export tax, does that not mean that the price will stay as high as it was, and that therefore the volume of exports is not likely to recover?

I think not. That is not the conclusion that was drawn by the Secretary of State.

If the hon. Gentleman does not have official information about what happened, may I inform him that the decision was taken as a result of a majority vote in the Council? Does he agree that this great success by the Foreign Secretary, about which we are all pleased, shows the importance of majority voting on occasion, and will he draw that to the attention of such of his colleagues as, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that unofficial confirmation of unofficial reports, and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what he has said.

Is not the truth of the matter that the Botswana Government were so pleased that they got the Foreign Secretary out of his bed at an ungodly hour to tell him how pleased they were?

Again, from unofficial reports, I understand that to be the case.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever may be our views about membership of the Community, a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs is revealed if the discussions in the Council of Ministers cannot be reported to this House in such a way that we know there was sustained French opposition, and if we have to rely upon the Financial Times, the authenticity of which I am prepared personally to underwrite? I believe that the hon. Gentleman believes the same.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the House last week, when the Foreign Secretary was answering Questions he referred to this matter in some detail. There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary about what one might call the intimate details of the negotiations, but I am not in a position to give them today.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will authorise special aid grants to Botswana during the current financial year over and above the programme already agreed.

I have received no requests for additional aid to Botswana and I therefore have no action of this kind in mind.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent behaviour of the Common Market towards Botswana's beef exports calls in question the good faith of the Lomé Convention? Will he assure us that Her Majesty's Government will not tolerate any further breaches of the spirit and intention of that agreement, such as have occurred in this instance?

I think that the vigorous action taken by the Secretary of State on this subject speaks for itself.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In recent days the question has been raised with you of the way in which Question Time is used and abused. My point today is that I think that the House of Commons has been put into second place this afternoon by the Minister for Overseas Development not being here—

Order. Whether Ministers attend or not is a matter for them, not for the Chair. I have no powers in that regard at all.

Further to that point of order—

Order. I have ruled that it is not a point of order. The attendance of Ministers is not a matter for the Chair.

On a fresh point of order, regarding the rights of back benchers. At Question Time it is the right of a back bencher to question the principal Minister responsible for a Department. I am only saying to you, Sir, as the guardian of our rights, that I feel that we have such rights to protect. If Ministers go abroad instead of attending here on the one day when they can come here, once every six or eight weeks, that is an abuse of the House, and puts back benchers in an impossible position in seeking to ask questions of that Department. That is my only point.

Further to that point of order. I have explained to the House and given the Minister's apology. I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will accept that it is a very important meeting that my right hon. Friend is attending in Paris—

So is this.

—which is very much in the interests of the developing world, which I know that the hon. Gentleman has very much at heart. If he puts this into perspective, especially in the light of the Question that he himself has down about Bangladesh, and takes into account what I have said, I think that he will agree that it is very much in the interests of Bangladesh that my right hon. Friend should be where he is now rather than at this Dispatch Box. I hope that he will also accept that there have been competent answers in his absence.

rose—

Order. I am not prepared to allow this discussion to go any further. This is not a matter for the Chair. There is nothing in the Standing Orders about the attendance of Ministers.