asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his present estimate of the yield of oil from the North Sea in 1976, 1977 and 1978; and how this compares with official estimates made two years previously.

The Government's estimates are indicated in the table on page 16 of the Brown Book. For the years mentioned, these represent a reduction as compared with the 1973 forecast because of the over-optimistic view then taken of the time necessary to bring fields into production.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the Government's uncertainty over the terms of participation in the oilfields, development in the smaller oilfields is being held up and that this is resulting in a run-down in the fabrication yards, the net result of which is bound to mean even greater numbers of unemployed?

The problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers are real, but the truth is that the estimates made in 1973 did not take account of the difficulties facing the offshore operators and have nothing whatever to do with the other factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the most recent World in Action poll it was shown that, based on that sample, two-thirds of the Scottish people wish all or most of Scottish oil resources to be used for the benefit of the Scottish people through the Scottish Assembly? Will the Secretary of State comment on the implications of that sample poll on energy policy, particularly in view of the fact that self-sufficiency in Scottish terms is likely to be achieved by the late spring? Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that his Department's policies will have to change to accord with that situation?

I am responsible for many things but not for World in Action public opinion polls or the assertions of the hon. Gentleman. I think that everybody recognises that what we want is to get control of our own resources, as far as possible. The policy that we are putting forward, which I hope both Houses of Parliament will pass this week, will help us in that intention. The benefits in Scotland, in terms of the number of jobs and opportunities, quite apart from the benefits that will flow from the oil to the people in Scotland, will be real.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his recent agreement with the oil companies on a greater share of work being given to British companies has been well received throughout the country, and especially in Scotland? Will he confirm that if the Scottish National Party's disastrous policy of a low depletion rate for North Sea oil were to be followed the Government would have to tell the people of Scotland that it would mean a drastic loss of jobs? We want oil-assured jobs and prosperity for the whole country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the memorandum of understanding, although the main credit for that must go to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Did not my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) make a valid point, namely, that the uncertainty which the Government have created by their policy of participation and the setting up of the BNOC is leading directly to a loss of jobs in the fabrication yards in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman have the grace to recognise that fact, even if he cannot do much about it?

The right hon. Gentleman has done his best to create uncertainty, and, because he says that there is uncertainty, he asks me to believe that what he says is correct. It is not correct. We are remedying the betrayal of the national interests by the Conservative Government when they had responsibility for oil matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he had with the Japanese Government about Japanese participation in the development of the North Sea oilfield.

In the course of a visit to Japan last month, I took the opportunity of meeting several members of the Japanese Government. My informal exchanges with them included North Sea oil, among other topics.

The Secretary of State has not disclosed very much. Did he make a deal with the Japanese that Japanese exploration could take some interest in the North Sea? Did he discuss arrangements under which the Japanese could import crude oil from the United Kingdom? Did he recruit Japanese capital from the banks of the chemical industry? Finally, what is the position of the National Iranian Oil Co. in all this?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the next round of licences which has been forecast has not yet been announced in detail. I made it clear to the Japanese that there would be no discrimination against foreign companies applying for licences in the next round. It would have been quite wrong for me to anticipate the discussions. But the Japanese are very interested in this matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If I remember the figures aright, 73 per cent. of all Japanese energy is oil, and 99·7 per cent. of the oil they use is imported. The Japanese estimate that they will need to double their consumption of oil over the next few years, so their interest in the North Sea is very strong. [Interruption.] I made it clear that we should be making available further blocks for licensing, and they expressed an interest in it. I told them that there would be no discrimination against them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he is saying now about Japanese investment in United Kingdom oil is in marked contrast to what his predecessor said on 4th November last year, when he roundly condemned my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because we had even so much as talked to the Japanese about investing? Will he disown his right hon. Friend, and confirm that there has been a change of Government policy in this matter?

No, certainly not. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman looks in Hansard he will find that when I was Opposition spokesman I made exactly the same criticism—that we believed that the previous Government, by linking Japanese investment in industry generally with a pledge to the North Sea, were making a wrong decision. Therefore, what my right hon. Friend my predecessor as Secretary of State for Energy said was right, and the approach that we are making on this is correct, too. When the licensing round is opened, there will be no discrimination against those who wish to apply for licences.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated flow of oil from the Forties Field over the next 12 months at the latest date for which the figure is available.

BP estimates 1976 production from the Forties Field at a daily average of about 200,000 barrels. The precise quantities will depend on progress with development drilling on all four platforms, only one of which has so far been commissioned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the start of oil flow from the Forties Field is a tribute to the public enterprise of British Petroleum, a company which is 70 per cent. in public ownership? But did my hon. Friend notice that at the opening ceremony last Monday there were representatives of the Tory Party and the Scottish National Party? Does he not think it strange that such Right-wing opportunists should jump on the bandwagon in view of the fact that certain Tory extremists tried to wreck the British National Oil Corporation, and certain Scottish nationalist extremists attempted to blow up the Forties pipeline?

I am sure that the whole House will agree that British Petroleum showed immense enterprise in bringing this field on to production. I am glad to say that I have no ministerial responsibility for those who were invited to the ceremony, since it was a matter for British Petroleum, nor have I ministerial responsibility for opportunism on the part of anybody.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that I was one of the Members who had the pleasure of seeing Scotland's oil come ashore a few days ago? Is he also aware, and can he point this out to his hon. Friends, for whom I am sure he has no ministerial responsibility, that within a few months the arrival of oil in Scotland from the Forties Field will make Scotland self-sufficient in oil products? Will he explain to us when we shall see the benefit to Scotland from this?

There are considerable benefits flowing from the exploitation of North Sea oil. The hon. Gentleman, some of whose constituents are involved in this, already knows that and ought to pay credit to it. It is not Scottish oil. It is British oil. It belongs to the whole of the United Kingdom and its benefits should accrue to the whole of the United Kingdom. What I find surprising is the definite and embarrassed silence of the Scottish National Party when the Shetlands put forward a claim that is as justified as that of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in view of the difficulties merchants have in obtaining supplies of anthracite; and if he will make a statement.

Generally, the supply of anthracite, which is a matter for the NCB and the coal trade, should be adequate, but if shortages occur in certain parts of the country, alternative solid fuels should be available.

Does the Minister understand that in the West Midlands there are not adequate supplies, and that, for instance, since July coal merchants in my constituency have never had more than 40 per cent. of the amount specied in their annual tonnage contracts? That figure refers to road-borne supplies. For rail-borne supplies, the figure is 25 per cent. How are the merchants to supply their customers? Will the Minister understand that they expect somebody in the Government to be responsible for this state of affairs? Will he further understand their natural indignation at being forced to pay a levy for a promotional campaign when they cannot even obtain supplies for their present customers?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety—it is an anxiety that is shared in Scotland and in the Midlands—but I hope that he will agree that, under special arrangements made by the NCB and the trade, anthracite is being imported from West Germany, South Africa and Vietnam. The tonnage is estimated to be sufficient to safeguard the home market. The figure is about 100,000 tons. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I take note also of his strictures, but this is the responsibility of the National Coal Board and the trade, and not of the Government.

Will the Minister assure us that he will now make representations to the Chairman of the National Coal Board to make sure that this promotional campaign makes clear to customers that alternative sources are available, and that they will be suitable for their uses? The Minister will know that at the moment there is a great deal of unease in the mining industry about the level of coal stocks. It cannot be a good thing to promote the use of solid fuel if the customer cannot get what he wants.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. There are plenty of other types of coal, plenty of other types of smokeless fuel, and plenty of other types of bituminous coal. I am seized of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, that the situation could be misunderstood when we are talking about anthracite. Nevertheless, I shall draw to the attention of the Chairman of the National Coal Board the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take over the deadlock between the National Coal Board and the Watford Borough Council relating to the 600 fires in the houses of the Harebrecks Estate, Watford, details of which have been given him by the honourable Member for Watford; and if he will make a statement.

The NCB informs me that it is still awaiting a response from the Watford Borough Council to the revised offer that the Board made at the meeting on 24th July that my hon. Friend chaired.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that for the last two years the residents of about 800 homes in Watford have had not heat but noxious fumes pumped into their houses by the heaters which the National Coal Board has installed, and that 30 other areas are having similar difficulties with these heaters? Will he do his best to winkle Sir Derek Ezra out of his "hard-heading" to talk to the Watford Borough Council so that some sensible suggestions can be made? For the benefit of hon. Members, the term "hard-heading" means—

Order. This is not the time for statements.

I have every sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend is advancing, but I do not entirely accept the implications of his question. I hope he will concede that the Board's offer was to deal with extreme urgency with any cases in which health was shown to be at risk. I hope that he will take cognisance of what I said in my answer to his Question. The Board has made an offer to the town council and it is for the town council to respond to that offer. I think my hon. Friend will agree that there is a contractual relationship between the Board and the town council, and that contractual relationship should be pursued. I am sure that, through his good offices, my hon. Friend would want to be helpful as he has been in the past.

It is the same offer as was made two and a half years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects his Department to complete its study on the utilisation of waste heat in power stations.

The utilisation of waste heat from power stations is one of the subjects being considered by a group under the chairmanship of my Chief Scientist, Dr. Marshall. The group's report is not expected for several months.

Have any discussions taken place between the Under-Secretary's Department and the CEGB on the question whether any of the 48 older power stations which are in town centres and which are due to be closed would be suitable for conversion to sell waste heat as well as electricity? Clearly, that would consume the fuel more efficiently than even in the most modern power stations today.

The Department of Energy is seized of the point of trying to get better thermal efficiency from power stations. Hence the reason for the reply that I gave to the hon. Member's Question. These power stations are, of course, old and unsuitable for conversion, because they are nearing the end of their lives. However, there is always the possibility of redeveloping the station sites for the new combined heat and power plants, and the electricity supply industry is actively considering this possibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the answer in the spirit in which it is given.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a great condemnation of both sides of the House that, within a mile of these premises, a very large block of flats has been heated for 40 years by the waste heat from Battersea power station? Does he realise that this sort of utilisation could apply to a substantial number of coal-fired power stations today, and would prolong their lives and provide greater economic advantage to the country?

In the right circumstances, the combined production of heat and power can lead to substantial energy savings. Indeed, there are many good examples of this in industry, as my hon. Friend has suggested. However, the Government believe that schemes for combined heat and power should be economically viable. That is why we have the working party examining this proposition, and it will no doubt report to the House in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for the future of the high temperature reactor.

The high temperature reactor has no place at present in the forward programmes of our electricity boards. Nor do we have the resources to pursue its development, given the higher priority of the AGRs, the SGHWR and the fast reactor. I have discussed the future of the Dragon project with other EEC Energy Ministers and Monsieur Simonet.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this technique is a most valuable fall-back position should something go wrong—and it could easily go wrong yet—with the fast-breeder reactor and that the Dragon project has been a net currency earner for the country over a number of years? May I also urge upon my right hon. Friend that a decision now to abandon the high-temperature reactor is extremely short-sighted, and one which this country will greatly regret in the future?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. He is very knowledgeable. I believe that any country is bound to settle upon a particular reactor system. We have settled—I think that this is widely understood—on the SGHWR and the fast-breeder to follow the AGRs. Of course, the experimental operation being carried out on Dragon is of value. We have been paying very heavily for it ourselves, and I have made an offer to our partners abroad—I have discussed it with Commissioners Guido Brunner and Simonet, in Brussels—which would give an opportunity for this facility to continue if they wish it so to do. I am criticised for putting too much emphasis upon nuclear resources as compared with other non-conventional methods of energy generation. I think it would be wrong to pursue the Dragon project with the object that my hon. Friend has in mind—that it is a stand-by—as the only reason.

Before the Secretary of State takes the wrong decision on the high-temperature reactor, will he consider this matter from the angle of process heat and consult the British Steel Corporation and the chemical industry first? Will he also contact KWU of Western Germany, which has advanced ideas on this subject?

The point about process heat is one that had to be taken into account. I recognise its relevance, because it is clear that any successful system, as the HTR promises to be, would have those side effects. I discussed the matter very candidly with Herr Matthöfer when I was in Bonn, and it was as a result of representations made by the German Government that I was able to make a further offer to our partners, saying that if, by the end of November, they would agree that it should continue until the end of June, we would cancel the desecondment notices to the AEA staff. I think I have played quite fair by this, but the basic decision is one that the Government think is right.

Is it not the case that by giving that extremely short notice the Government have simply held a pistol to the head of their partners on the Dragon? Is not the real long-term danger that this country will simply not be trusted by our partners to be the host country for major technological projects of this kind? When one thinks of the future of the Joint European Torus project, will not this be extremely damaging for Britain's scientific future?

No, certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman knew the circumstances he would not make such a charge. We originally offered that it should continue until April, and we made it clear that our own view was that we could not justify it ourselves. Then, when we were told that this involved short notice, no one accused us of putting a pistol to anyone's head. It was said, rather, that it was rather short notice. We offered to extend it to June, which provides six or nine months' notice, provided that our partners were ready to agree to this by the end of November—that is, it was in their hands to determine the continuation of the programme. Therefore, I do not believe that the charge of putting a pistol to anyone's head could be laid against us. Moreover, among other Treasuries, the German Treasury is now extremely rigid in its control over research and development, and all the countries of the Community are anxious to get the maximum benefit from research that they commission.

As this concerns my constituency, may I be allowed one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

All right.

Is the Minister aware that there are already considerable economic difficulties in my constituency? Will he give an assurance that, whatever decision he may take in respect of this reactor, the future of Winfrith as a whole is in no way in danger?

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the hon. Gentleman to ask his supplementary question. I had a meeting recently with the Atomic Energy Authority staff side and I discussed this matter with its members in some detail. They did not raise the staff question themselves, because the Authority was able to assure me that there would be no forced redundancies arising from this ending of secondment of staff. If the hon. Gentleman has anxieties beyond that, perhaps we may discuss them. I have no reason to believe that the matter impacts upon the future of Winfrith.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the total volume of annual production of oil, natural gas and coal in the United Kingdom in 1975 and in 1980.

In 1975 the production of oil is estimated to be between 1 million and 2 million tons, and natural gas is expected to be approaching 4,000 million cu. ft. per day. Estimates of the future annual production of oil and natural gas are given in the Brown Book "Development of Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom" published by the Department of Energy. The production of oil is estimated to rise to between 100 million and 130 million tons in 1980 and natural gas production is expected to rise to 5,000 million cu. ft. per day. In 1975, coal production is expected to be about 125 million tons. The future level of coal production is discussed in the "Coal Industry Examination" reports. It is expected that production will be about 135 million tons in 1980.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important answer. Will he confirm that there is a strong possibility, even if tight energy conservation policies are pursued, that the United Kingdom can export substantial quantities of offshore oil, even if this is merely on the basis of an exchange for less valuable oil of an inferior quality?

As our oil production builds up to self-sufficiency and beyond, it is envisaged that the different grades of oil that we shall need will permit us to enter into the world trade in oil. If that is the point that my hon. Friend has in mind, I can give him that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the training and safety requirements for divers employed on North Sea oil rigs.

The Training Services Agency of the Manpower Services Commission announced on 5th November that it has introduced a national training standard for basic air diving and underwater working. The Agency has already established the Underwater Training Centre at Loch Linnhe to provide basic, deep and specialist diving training. My Department has introduced the Offshore Installations (Diving Operations) Regulations 1974, which came into force on 1st January this year—the first offshore diving regulations in the world, which other countries are copying. We are monitoring the working of these Regualtions in the light of our knowledge and experience, and we think that they make a significant new step towards greater safety for offshore divers.

I welcome that reply, but does the Minister appreciate that, so far, about 24 divers have lost their lives in North Sea operations? That is an alarming proportion, considering that the total number of working divers is about 950. I welcome the moves that have been made, but does the Mnister accept that a great deal of concern is felt about the Government diving school which he mentioned, particularly because the salary for a diving instructor being offered by that school is about £5,000 a year, which is much less than can be earned by a diver on the North Sea oil rigs? Will he try to put matters right by having a higher salary level for people in those important jobs?

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman, that the figure of 24 deaths is for both British and Norwegian waters. The figure for British waters, for all accidents on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, is 17. This figure is constantly misrepresented in the Press, and I am glad to have this opportunity to correct it.

Does my hon. Friend recollect the study prepared by the Scottish section of the British Medical Association, which pointed out the great dangers facing divers and other workers in the offshore oil business? The steps so far taken have been welcomed, but will he ensure that a statement is made in due course on all the suggestions made in that report?

I am glad to confirm that that study is under close consideration by my Department and by other Government Departments. If we think that something useful can be done as a result of those recommendations we shall certainly not hesitate to take action.

Is the Minister aware that the fee for the 12-weeks' course at the diving school near Fort William is in excess of £2,000 and that, although a trained diver can command a substantial salary, the services of many suitable young men may be lost initially, due to difficulty in financing their early training? Will the Minister consider a loan scheme on a short-term basis?

The administration of the diving school is not the direct responsibility of my Department. The Shenley Trust Ltd. is involved in that. I should like to look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, as that might be a responsibility of diving companies in the first instance.

Would the Minister care to say what recent representations he has received from the diving companies about rescue and training facilities, and what outcome he might expect from any discussions that he has had with them?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have received representations from diving companies on a number of matters. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has a particular medical point in mind. If so, I shall be glad if he will table a specific Question or write to me direct.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the Government's present views on the agreement between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Rossing Uranium Limited signed in 1968, and subsequently amended.

I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 9th December 1974.—[Vol. 883, c. 23.]

Does the Secretary of State now feel that the views he expressed in a letter on "Apartheid Lessons" in 1973 are no longer relevant?

It is true that in 1973 I said that the Labour Government would terminate that contract. That is on record.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the potential yield of oil finds in the West Shetland, Celtic Sea and Channel areas, respectively.

Oil has not yet been discovered in any of these areas. Seismic survey work suggests that they are promising, but further drilling will be needed before we can make a worthwhile assessment of potential reserves, area by area.

Does the Minister accept that these are extremely high-risk areas and are hardly suitable for an inexperienced company, such as the British National Oil Corporation? Will he ensure that in such circumstances public funds are not put at unnecessary risk when private finance is available?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should abandon our participation proposals, I confirm that we shall do no such thing. It is an essential part of the Government's policy that in the next round of licensing we shall have majority State participation. The great pity is that this was not done in 1971 by the Conservative Government. It is impossible to write down these areas as the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in advance. He should bear in mind that in 1969 a leading oil company said that there was no oil in the northern North Sea.

Will my hon. Friend say what exploration drilling has so far taken place in the Celtic Sea? If I am right in thinking that none has taken place, what action will be taken if the companies do not carry out their responsibilities to explore the blocks for which they have licences?

During the past year no drilling has taken place in the Celtic Sea, one reason being the high rate of success east of the Shetlands, where companies achieved a success ratio of one in two. Companies are under specific licence obligations to complete a drilling schedule or surrender their licence. Both the Government and the companies will be anxious to see that those obligations are fulfilled, and over the next year I expect to see activity in these areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many oil rigs are currently engaged in the exploration of United Kingdom oilfields: how many were so engaged at the end of October 1974; and how many he expects to be engaged at the end of October 1975

Twenty-six mobile drilling rigs were operating on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf at the end of October 1975. This compares with 25 at the end of October 1974.

Does the Minister consider that that is progress? Does he not feel that the need to explore for oil in the North Sea requires a great deal of urgency and incentive from the Government, rather than the arm-twisting over what is referred to as "voluntary" participation, which is contrary to public interest and is in danger of driving further exploration rigs away from this area?

That hardly squares with the fact that the present level of drilling activity is the highest there has ever been in the North Sea. Indeed, our prediction for this year was 30, and the average is likely to be 28, so it was a reasonably accurate prediction. I take this opportunity of challenging the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who, in recent articles, has suggested that the Government predicted an average rig year's activity of 40 for this year. That is quite untrue, and is a misinterpretation of the statistics.

Will my hon. Friend remember that no matter how many oil drilling rigs there are in the North Sea, there is a limit to the amount of oil there? Therefore, will he sound a warning to the Scots who are pinning all their faith on the policy of the Scottish National Party, which suggests that Scottish oil, as it calls it, will solve all Scotland's problems? In fact, the limit of this oil will be reached in, possibly, 30 years from now.

I think it is impossible to come to precise conclusions about the amount of oil there is, or how long it will last. I certainly agree with my hon Friend that it would be the height of folly to try to float off some sort of independent State upon a commodity which is finite and very much subject to price changes.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how Great Britain's exports of coal in 1975 compare with exports in the last five years; and whether he is satisfied that Great Britain is sufficiently exploiting its coal resources.

Exports of coal and coal products in 1975 are expected to be well above the average for the previous five years. The industry's Plan for Coal, involving expenditure of about £1,400 million at 1974 prices over the next 10 years, represents the maximum development of the country's coal reserves that we think is feasible, but the NCB is continuing with an active programme of exploration.

I ask the Minister to give the actual figures for the increase in exports. It does not help very much if we do not get them. Does he agree that countries such as Poland and the United States are increasing their production and exports of coal quite dramatically but that we have not achieved the same improvement? Does he also agree that increased productivity in the coal industry could result in the industry's becoming a major exporter? What are the Government doing to achieve the kind of productivity increases that we were led to expect would result from the large pay increases of the past two years?

As the hon. Gentleman will probably have noticed, for the past three weekends I have been devoting some time to the question how we can build up an export market for the future. The economies of other countries are undergoing a depression. However, as the hon. Gentleman wanted figures, I can say that 90 per cent. of our coal trade is with the EEC. In 1974–75 it was valued at £60 million. Further, the EEC has predicted that in the next decade there should be an expansion in coal exports of about 20 million tons.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is deep concern in the South Wales coalfields at the fact that large coal stocks are being built up there? When one hears that coal is being imported there is anxiety, which might well affect productivity in the mines. Will my hon. Friend consult the NCB with a view to there being a drive to export the coal being produced? It could make a major contribution to the balance of payments.

That is precisely what I have been doing over the past two or three weekends. My right hon. Friend and I are meeting the National Union of Mineworkers this week to discuss some of these problems. Imports of coal are on short-term contracts, and when those contracts expire it is unlikely that we shall import any more coal.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition congratulate him on what he is doing to encourage exports but that in the EEC 30 per cent. of all the imported coal comes from behind the Iron Curtain? We, as members of that organisation, ought to start using our elbows to see whether we can sell more of our coal in Europe rather than rely on the Russians and the Poles.

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. That is the message I have been giving to the mining industry for a considerable time. I believe that there is capacity, not only in Europe but in the rest of the world, for exporting coal, and I hope that the mining industry and the National Coal Board see that potential, particularly when the world starts its upturn in economic activity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Electricity Council, social security and welfare organisations about the hardship faced by consumers this winter as a result of increased fuel bills.

I recently met the Electricity Council, when it described to me its plans for helping consumers who may be in difficulties during the coming winter. I have written to all hon. Members on this subject.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the most recent report of the Price Commission—in particular, paragraph 2(9), which states that not only prices but, more significantly, costs in the nationalised industries are rising much faster than in the private industries? Is it not clear that, whatever steps he takes to relieve individual hardship, consumers are getting a much poorer deal from nationalised industries for their money?

The nationalised industries undoubtedly have got into difficulties because of the long period of restraint on prices imposed upon them. The Question, as I understood it, was about the problems of hardship that might follow from increasing tariffs over the winter. On that point, I am anxious to see that the matter is handled with the greatest possible sensitivity, and I have reason to believe that the fuel authorities will do so.

What part does my right hon. Friend expect the electricity, gas and coal industries to play in the discussions with the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on the new price restraint package? What progress is being made in his departmental inquiry into tariff structures in the electricity and gas industries?

Discussions are in progress over a very wide range of issues, including the rôle of the Department of Health and Social Security and social benefits. In the discussions that we are holding about energy tariffs and the inquiries we have made into them, Ministers are very deeply involved, and I cannot say more at the moment.

If the initiative of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to restrain prices by 5 per cent. in the coming year is to be carried out, how is the coal industry to meet its target of earning a proper return on its sales and assets?

I do not want to ask the hon. Gentleman simply to await what the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will be saying about that, but obviously the implication, for the energy industries, of proposals of the general character that she has mentioned has been the subject of discussion. We have in mind the move towards economic pricing, as has been made clear by the Government.

Will my right hon. Friend refute the suggestion that has been made in some quarters of the electricity supply organisation that gas prices should rise to the level charged by the electricity authorities in order to provide a common layer of charges?

There is a competitive element in fuel prices, and the argument has been put that gas is underpriced, but this is not a view that I have felt would justify an increase in prices beyond that authorised by the Price Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's most up-to-date estimate of fuel saving as a result of the "Save It" advertising campaign.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the progress of Her Majesty's Government's "Save It" campaign; and if he will make a statement.

It is obviously not possible to assess precisely the energy savings achieved by the "Save It" advertising campaign, which is only one of a number of factors affecting total energy consumption. However, I am satisfied that it is playing a valuable part in changing attitudes towards the use of energy and encouraging its more efficient and economic use.

Why has so little of the campaign been beamed at the motorist? As it is now nearly a year since the Minister introduced the package, can the hon. Gentleman say what effect the speed limits have had in reducing our imports of motor fuel?

I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman information about this matter. It is one of a number of factors affecting energy consumption. It is impossible to isolate or quantify the effects. However, motor spirit deliveries in August fell by nearly 7 per cent. compared with the previous August, despite the good weather.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the major values of the "Save It" advertising campaign has been in giving practical advice on small ways in which consumers can save energy? Will he therefore consider a Christmas edition of that advertisement?

I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that we are not proud concerning ideas for conservation and saving. We shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

When will the Government follow their advertising campaign with a longer-term strategy, with a longer-term target and with a proper budget, and adopt some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on energy conservation?

I fully understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We are giving consideration to the Committee's report. No doubt my right hon. Friend will announce to the House, in due time, his considered view.

In view of the effect of the "Save It" campaign on the demand for electricity and the levels of employment in the electricity supply industry, will the Government maintain close contact with representatives of the industry, to minimise any employment difficulties that may arise?

My hon. Friend has already made the employment position clear to people associated with the industry. We are aware of what can be described as short-term considerations, but, in general, energy conservation must be a long-term strategy and that is what the Government intend to pursue.

Is the Minister aware that the 50 mph limit on main roads is increasingly being ignored? What consultations is he having with his hon. Friends who are responsible for transport with a view to lifting this speed limit, which is now totally out of date?

We do not intend to abandon these measures. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the law is being broken by drivers. I was able to inform his hon. Friend of the substantial savings and reduction in the consumption of motor spirit, which leads us to believe—I hope he will agree—that most drivers are law-abiding people.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy regarding the building of new power stations using oil, in the light of the increased costs of oil being imposed by OPEC.

The increased costs of oil will be fully taken into account when next we are considering the building of a fossil-fired power station.

Does the Minister agree that that does not get us very much further? Could we not have a more positive statement of policy? Would it not be better to say here and now that the cost of oil and the need to preserve it demand that no more oil-fired power stations be built?

I think that many hon. Members will have great sympathy with what the hon. Lady has said. She knows my views in relation to the ideas which she is putting forward. However, she must agree that in the past one of the great problems when the House was trying to wrestle with energy policy and forecasts was that hon. Members became ultra-dogmatic in their approach. Therefore, although there are many hon. Members who will agree with what she is saying, I think she must also agree that one must not be too dogmatic about the approach that one will take, bearing in mind the wide choice of indigenous energy resources in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that coal stocks are sufficient to meet all winter demands.

Coal stocks, together with coal production at its current level, should be sufficient to meet winter demand. But in difficult winter conditions transport might present a problem.

Does not the Minister agree that this good position for stocks, on which we congratulate him, is more a result of falling demand than of increased productivity, which is now worryingly low and 3 per cent. down on what it was last year? What action do the Government and the board intend to take to try to get productivity increased?

I do not think that I should hide from the House the fact that there is a decreasing demand for coal in keeping with the downturn in worldwide economic activity. Nevertheless, as the hon. Genleman has suggesed, we are very glad that we have the stocks. The hon. Gentleman will also be glad that productivity has undergone a bit of a revival during the past week or two, and one hopes that this will continue. Lastly, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear me reaffirm that my right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the National Union of Mineworkers this week to discuss all problems attendant on the mining industry.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he will make a further statement on his discussions with his EEC colleagues on aid from the Community to Commonwealth countries in South Asia.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what progress he has made in encouraging the European Economic Community to improve its financial aid to non-associated developing countries to assist in raising food output.

Since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 15th October—[Vol. 897, c. 710–11.]—a modest 3·5 million units of account aid programme has been agreed to help promote the exports of the non-associated developing countries in 1976. The Council of Ministers, on 13th October, failed to reach agreement on a programme of financial aid to non-associated developing countries that would have assisted these countries in increasing their food production. Discussion is continuing about the possibility of a Community contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

Does the Minister recognise the connection between this and other Community matters? If the Foreign Secretary persists in dragging his feet on a Community approach to such matters as energy, the energy conference and direct elections, does it not make the right hon. Gentleman's position much weaker when he is trying to argue for a Community approach to this subject, where a Community approach happens to suit our national interest?

No, Sir. I see no logical connecton between the two. At the Council of Ministers on 13th October, the argument to which the hon. Member refers was not used against me or against the other countries which were supporting the Commission's proposal for aid to non-associates.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is a matter of deep regret that, 14 or 15 months after making the original general commitment, the Council of Ministers has still not found it possible to carry out this pledge of extra aid for the non-associated territories? I note the Secretary of State's pledge not to accept "Non" or "Nein" for an answer, but is my right hon. Friend able to say when he expects to get "Oui" or "Ja" out of the Council?

I certainly agree that it is a matter for regret, which was expressed on both sides of the House in the debate we had on Friday. I hope that the unanimity of parliamentary opinion here will be noted in other European countries. Certainly, I hope to return to this matter as early as possible, and I hope to see another meeting of the Council of Development Ministers as early as possible. Meanwhile, we shall use other methods to try to persuade them to a different point of view. As to whether I accept "Nein" for an answer, I am having a meeting with my German opposite number the week after next.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us, on both sides of the House, who returned from India today from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference were once more forcibly reminded of the particular problems of India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, following the increased energy costs. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about what he is doing personally within the EEC context to try to bring a sharper focus to the EEC approach in these areas?

Yes, Sir. The main reason why Britain and some other European countries are pressing for a wider aid programme from the Community for the present non-associates is our concern with the situation in Southern Asia, and in India in particular. India is an under-aided country compared with other aid recipients throughout the world. More should be done for India, and, in particular, the Community should have an aid programme there.

Recalling that one of the arguments used for entering the European Community was that of giving greater aid to the Third World, does not my right hon. Friend think it possible that, because the general system of preferences of the EEC is now inferior to those which we gave to the South-East Asian nations, the continued refusal of the EEC to take action on its commitment could mean that they are now worse off vis-à-vis this country in terms of aid?

The system of preferences is a matter which is being pursued. As my hon. Friend knows, it is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.