asked the Secretary of State for Energy to which countries plutonium is exported from Great Britain; and if he is satisfied that such export is essential to our nuclear energy industry.

Plutonium exports are not separately designated in the overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom, but are subject to licensing control and international safeguards. I am satisfied with these arrangements and with the purposes for which these exports are undertaken.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the spread of nuclear weapons is one of the gravest dangers facing mankind? Have not Japan—one of the recipients—and certain other countries failed to ratify the non-proliferation agreement?

I agree very strongly with what my hon. Friend said about the risk of the spread of nuclear weapons. It is, of course, an argument that can be used both ways, in that it may help to justify—I do not regard this as an overwhelming argument—the maintenance of procedures of nuclear processing in this country. I am aware of the risk, and I share my hon. Friend's view. However, it is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to comment on the non-proliferation treaty. But certainly my hon. Friend will recognise that the very strict safeguards and inspection that we maintain have as one of their objects the entrenchment of our policy about the spread of nuclear technology for possible military uses.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we face a choice in dealing with foreign countries in the reprocessing of irradiated fuel, in that we could either license them to undertake the process themselves or we could do the work here, at Windscale? Does he not agree that, on balance, the latter is likely to be the preferable course? When will he announce his decision on the Japanese reprocessing contract?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; we do face a choice. In the nuclear field there is now, fortunately, more public interest in the choices that have to be made. I am certainly anxious to make public the nature of these choices, so that people can contribute to the debate. I cannot say when a decision will be announced on the reprocessing contract for Japan, but I have made arrangements for an open presentation this week in London by BNFL, to which the critics of the nuclear policy—trade unions and others—will be invited to make their contributions, and I hope that this will help to open up the nature of the choices that we have to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what reply he has received from the Chairman of the NCB to the letter he sent regarding Langwith Colliery; and if he will make a statement.

As hon. Members will know, the Chairman readily agreed to give those concerned another opportunity of making their case. It has not yet been possible to reach agreement on this issue, and I very much hope that the two sides will be able to do so in the further talks which, I gather, the NUM is to have with the National Coal Board. I do not think it would help in reaching agreement to make further statements at this stage.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the only reason why the National Coal Board and the miners' leaders are meeting is the threatened national overtime ban to save the jobs of 900 miners who are working in a very profitable pit, where the production of coal at any time in the last 10 years has been 20 per cent. above the national average, and where at least between 3 million and 4 million tons are left to be mined?

My hon. Friend has taken a direct, keen, continuing and active interest in this matter. What he has said in the House is what he has said and made clear to me over a number of months. Clearly, as a Minister, I am not qualified to assume responsibilities which properly fall to the National Coal Board—nor would I wish to have them. But I am anxious that the Coal Board should discuss this matter fully with the National Union of Mineworkers. With that in mind, I had a meeting to enable the case to be presented to me by the NUM executive, at which the people from the Langwith Colliery and another colliery were represented. I am aware of the sensitivity to the matter of closures My hon. Friend will know that a £600 million expansion programme was authorised, as it were, in the coal industry examination of last year, but it really would be for the Coal Board, in conjunction with the National Union of Mineworkers, to determine how that programme should be developed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what special consideration he has given to the problems of elderly people whose supplies of gas and electricity are cut off if they are unable to afford their bills.

Cases appearing to involve hardship are referred to the local offices of the Supplementary Benefits Commission or local authority social services before disconnection is carried out so that possible means of help can be considered. I intend to continue to take a close personal interest in this problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members will have warmly welcomed that reply, because they are very concerned at the possibility of thousands of old and severely disabled people suffering hardship or dying as a result of hypothermia when the really cold weather inevitably comes? Will he now go one step further to reassure us by issuing a directive to the gas and electricity boards that no old person or severely disabled person shall have his supplies cut off unless the social services and welfare officials have had a full opportunity to investigate each case?

I shall consider what my hon. Friend suggested. Last summer, when the magnitude of the problem facing us this winter became apparent, I saw the industries concerned and wrote to all hon. Members—my hon. Friend will have received a letter—trying to make clear the way in which we should tackle the problem over the winter. I think that it will be a serious problem, but I am hopeful that by the mechanisms devised we shall find a way to avoid some of the worst dangers, though there may well be individual cases, which I hope will be brought to the attention of the boards as soon as they become apparent.

Would it not be more sensible to consider providing thermal insulation grants to those most in need, rather than giving supplementary benefits to pay the higher fuel bills?

I appreciate the long-term importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but thermal insulation grants this winter would not help the people whom my hon. Friend had in mind with the large bills that will result from the increased tariffs.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and to contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to see that a directive or circular goes to local authorities as well as the gas and electricity boards? That would confirm the liaison that exists in theory but in practice sometimes fails.

I shall consider any proposal, but I believe that the best guarantee that the matter will be handled sensibly is public discussion and discussion with the boards, rather than a specific directive of the kind proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to collect from prepaid meters more frequently.

This is a matter for the commercial judgment of the boards themselves, in the light of their knowledge of the rate at which meters in different areas become full.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some consumers who prefer to pay for their electricity through the meter have found that as a result of increased charges their meter boxes are full before the routine collection? The result is that they are cut off not because they refuse to pay but, paradoxically, because they wish to pay more and faster than has been allowed for by the electricity boards? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the boards are aware of the problem and that they make arrangements either to collect more often or to provide larger meter boxes?

I am seized of the point my hon. Friend makes. The problem is being overcome by the introduction, as quickly as possible, of a new type of meter that accepts 50p pieces. All boards arrange to clear meters promptly if they are filled or jammed. Some boards allow consumers to empty meters themselves. Disconnections are infrequent. Boards treat requests to clear prepayment meters as an emergency and make no charge for the service.

Would it not be better if the boards speeded up their assessment of plastic token prepayment meters, so that those meters could be introduced, rather than the boards having to go through the palaver of first putting in 50p meters and then altering the meters yet again to take plastic tokens?

The matter has been discussed before, and there is another Question on the Order Paper about it. A preliminary assessment by the Electricity Council confirmed that while the idea merited continued study there was a range of questions to be answered and important problems to be overcome before widespread application could be envisaged. If my hon. Friend wishes to have any more information on the matter I shall be pleased to write to him about it.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the problem also applies to gas meters. Is he aware that an elderly couple who are housebound—I have such a couple in mind—and who need to keep a gas appliance on all day will fill up their meter very quickly, and that for an emergency collection they have to pay £3·40? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an exorbitant sum for old-age pensioners to pay?

If my hon. Friend gives me details of specific instances I shall be pleased to take them up, but my information is as I stated it before.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the proposed levels of oil production from the North Sea for the year 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the development programme for offshore oil and gas.

The development programme for offshore oil and gas is proceeding on the lines described in the 1975 Brown Book. The oil produced in 1976 will enable us to make a significant reduction in our oil imports.

Is the Minister aware that the level of oil production in 1976 and thereafter would be significantly higher if the present uncertainty over the 51 per cent. stake did not exist? When will the Government wake up and realise that it is their policy—a Socialist policy—that is having such a damaging effect on North Sea oil production?

Exactly the same comments were made by Conservative Members while the taxation system for the North Sea was being discussed and while the regulatory system under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act was being discussed. Conservative Members are still trying, for ideological reasons, to make out that participation is an obstacle to development in the North Sea. Participation is an essential way in which the national interest can be controlled and developed.

When is the next round of licensing to take place? Will the Minister repeat the assurance that there will be no compulsion on companies to yield to the Government 51 per cent. of their interest in the North Sea?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear last September that there would be a licensing round this year. We hope to invite applications in the fairly near future and perhaps award licences towards the end of the year. It has been made clear all along that the participation negotiations are voluntary.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the full effect that the flow of oil is likely to have on industrial investment, to ensure that by the end of the year industry is geared for the upturn that some of us expect?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to his attention.

Do the Government realise that it is as a direct result of their policies that investment is now being denied to many North Sea projects, and that this is nowhere more obvious than in the platform building industry, in which there is great alarm over the scarcity of orders?

There is a problem about timing in regard to platform orders and orders for associated equipment. The Government have taken steps to make sure that this country has sufficient capacity to meet the orders that are likely to come. We believe that important orders will be placed in the coming year. Opposition Members have never been able to demonstrate convincingly a causal connection between the Government's policies and the present situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a further statement on the Burmah Oil Company.

As I told the House on 3rd December, the Government have offered to purchase the whole or a substantial part of Burmah's North Sea oil assets at an arm's length price for transfer to the British National Oil Corporation. Negotiations for the purchase of the Ninian assets are under way and an advance of £40 million has been made to Burmah on this account. I shall keep the House in touch with developments.

I support the general policy line that my right hon. Friend has taken, but is he convinced that in going for the acquisition of one field rather than two the BNOC will be getting the best bargain? Is he convinced that £40 million will be enough to support these operations in future?

I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that I have not gone beyond what I said in the House on 3rd December, namely, that the Government have offered to buy the whole or a substantial part of these assets. My hon. Friend should not read into my answer any shift from that position. The £40 million advance has been carried out by giving a specific directive to the BNOC under the Act. It is not intended to be on any basis other than as an advance against the purchase that may emerge from the negotiations.

Is it not bizarre that on the very morning that Transport House is warning them that even to stick to their public expenditure proposals will mean a 10 per cent. increase in the rate of every tax, across the board, the Government should be squandering this money on buying out the private sector? Why do they persist in this futile doctrinaire approach to one of Britain's most important industries?

The object of the Government's policy is to safeguard the development of the Ninian and Thistle fields. If the right hon. Gentleman knows as little about Transport House as he does about the oil industry, we have little to fear from his criticism.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with current scales for electricity and gas charges.

The present general levels of charges for electricity and gas were approved by the Government.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the increased charges are causing great concern and great hardship? Does he agree that the subsidies to the nationalised boards should be retained over a much longer period? Secondly, will he be prepared to request all the area boards to provide prepayment facilities? Some boards—in particular, the Yorkshire Electricity Board—are reluctant to provide such facilities. Prepayment meters are a very important advantage to many people on low incomes. Will my right hon. Friend consider that point?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the serious impact on family budgets of the increase that has taken place in electricity and fuel charges generally, arising out of a change in the world situation with which he is well familiar. The choice before us in pricing for the fuel industries is to decide whether it is sensible to provide an across-the-board subsidy by uneconomic pricing or to move to economic pricing, thus giving the Government greater scope in other areas.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the position that arises when a one-parent family with four schoolchildren is faced with an electricity bill of £700, when, despite the activities of the social security office and the local authority, the electricity supply has been cut off and there is no heating and no hot water? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people concerned are living in the most miserable conditions?

If my hon. Friend's experience is the same as mine, he will know that every hon. Member will be coming across individual cases of that kind. Without seeking to do the work of the boards or of the social security departments, if my hon. Friend will inform me about these matters I shall be interested to consider in detail what lies behind a case of the kind that he has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the coal production for the United Kingdom for 1975.

Total coal production in the United Kingdom from 1st January 1975 to 20th December 1975, the latest date for which figures are available, was 124·8 million tons.

Will my hon. Friend give me an estimate of the percentage of United Kingdom coal that is produced in Scotland? Does he agree that a separate Scottish coal board, as proposed by the SNP, would probably lead to a decrease in production and disastrous consequences in terms of employment prospects for Scottish miners?

The figure for which my hon. Friend is looking during the year to which I have referred is the 11·7 million tons of coal produced in Scotland. My hon. Friend will recall that miners' leaders have always argued that British coal should be worked in an integrated manner. It is a fact that in Scotland we have a high-cost coalfield. That is not because Scottish miners are inferior but because of the difficult geological conditions. As my hon. Friend knows, I speak with some authority on that matter. Other areas in Britain would suffer, although not so much, if the policy of isolationism to which my hon. Friend referred were to be pursued.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the National Coal Board investment programme for 1975–76 is being maintained or increased? Is he aware that in the coal equipment manufacturing industry there are disturbing reports that the board is proposing to cut its investment in certain directions?

I have never heard the suggestion that my hon. Friend made. I refer him to the recent statement made by the chairman of the Board. I think it was made last week. I shall be happy to send him a copy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what study he has made of the potential for the generation of electricity which is based on coal, and coal in conjunction with nuclear fuels; and if he will make a statement.

My Department keeps these questions under constant review. The potential demand for coal for electricity generation was studied in the Coal Industry Examination which reported in 1974 and it will be one of the subjects for consideration in the discussions that my right hon. Friend is arranging to have with the electricity supply industry, the NCB and the unions concerned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole of our future depends on our having an integrated energy policy and that the key to such a policy in the next decade is to bring about a situation in which more and more electricity generation is based on coal, or coal associated with nuclear fuels?

I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the interim report arising from the Coal Industry Examination, in which it is said that total coal demand for the electricity supply industry in the United Kingdom could range up to 100 million tons or more in 1985. That will be the demand for electricity generation. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the tripartite inquiry gave this matter careful consideration. Its conclusions coincide with the viewpoint that he has put to the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem in the power stations at the moment is that they have too much coal and not enough load?

It is a fact that there is a surplus of coal at power stations. Incidentally, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is where the coal should be. There have been times in our history when there has been a greater stockpile of coal than at present. It is a fact that there is a downturn in energy demand and consumption, but, as I have said previously, we believe that the stockpiling of coal is the proper policy. When the upturn in the economy takes place, that coal will be very much needed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from the effect of the recession, one of the reasons for our stockpiling coal to the extent of about 32 million tons, both distributed and undistributed, is that we are importing coal? Is he aware that one contract is responsible for 40,000 tons of coal being imported and delivered to the Didcot Power Station, in Berkshire? That coal could be replaced by British-mined coal, thereby reducing stocks and saving on the balance of payments. Why does my hon. Friend not get something done about that?

My hon. Friend will recollect that this mater was discussed when we debated the National Coal Board (Finance) Bill a few weeks ago. I then explained, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was absent, not through his own fault—

I was at the NEC of the NUM.

I said that it was through no fault of my hon. Friend's. I then explained that the import figures were substantial. Those imports were arranged in a period when it was thought that the coal industry would not be able to meet its capacity. Those contracts were short-term, and it was intended to diminish them as time went on.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the Common Market energy policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the progress being made with the formulation of a European energy policy.

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

The date of the next Council of Energy Ministers has not yet been fixed, but I would expect it to take place during the next month or so. Since the June Energy Council good progress has been made on the work required for the further development of a Community energy policy. Proposals on the main issues are being prepared for submission to the Energy Council. I have, in addition, proposed that Energy Ministers should meet informally to exchange ideas and this proposal has been welcomed.

Does the Secretary of State believe that it is possible to have an effective common energy policy, particularly in terms of pricing, without Community control of the sources of energy? Have we, as a country, not set our faces against that?

Frankly, very little progress has been made with energy policy. When I attended the Energy Council meeting in the summer I discovered how little progress had been made. I suggested at that meeting—the idea was widely welcomed—that it would be better to start at the other end and examine together the energy policies of member States, so that we could appreciate the problems and, where there was an overlapping of interest, could build on secure foundations of common interest. That approach was welcomed and has provided a new start. When the informal meetings that I have proposed take place, I hope that we shall seek to make sense of the complicated patchwork of different interests.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when matters of common energy policy are discussed in European fora he will give top priority to representing our national interests rather than to strengthening his power base within the Labour Party?

Cheap.

When I told a meeting in Bridgwater that the whole energy policy of the Continent of Europe, if not of the world, was being delayed to allow me to make my presentation, it was received as a joke and was welcomed in that spirit. I was amazed at the way in which the Opposition revealed such a lack of a sense of humour and, indeed, tabled a laborious Early-Day Motion—which shows how little they understand of the way in which these matters are dealt with.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not listen to the siren voice of the EEC in its efforts to boost North Sea oil production to 180 million tons per year? Will he give a further assurance that it will not exceed a rate of 110 million tons a year—the figure adopted by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman will know that some of the proposals put by him and his colleagues to decrease oil production substantially would lead to serious unemployment. If he assumes that our depletion policy should reflect our own assessment of our national interest, that is sensible, but it is also my job to try to find a basis of common interest constructively within Energy Council meetings.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion of the journalist who reported the Secretary of State's remarks in Bridgwater is that they were not intended to be wholly jocular, but were intended to reflect the continuing dispute in the Labour Party over its attitude to the Common Market? Will he now give an unconditional assurance to the House that he will pursue the policy that has been approved by the referendum—a referendum of which he was the principal instigator—so that we may play our full part in Europe? Will he bend all his efforts to securing a European energy policy that is in the interests of the whole of Europe as well as of this country?

Although it is not my practice to complain, I must tell the House that my words were misquoted. Only The Times in London reported them as having been made in Bridgwater. Everybody present on that occasion would have known the spirit in which my remark was made. During the period when the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and his party were in office, no progress at all was made in developing energy policies within the EEC. The only way in which any policy can be made to work in this country, as well as in the EEC, is to see that it reflects the real interests of those concerned. That is the basis on which I made my proposal, and it has been widely welcomed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to reply to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on energy conservation.

My right hon. Friend told the Select Committee when he gave evidence to it in December that the recommendations in this Report were being studied carefully by my Department in close consultation with the other Departments concerned. The Government will reply to the Report as soon as possible after this work has been completed.

As it is now more than a year since the Government announced their interim measures on energy conservation and more than six months since the Select Committee issued its critical report, is it not time that we debated the Government's longer-term strategy, investment programme and budget targets in the long-term policy of energy conservation?

The hon. Gentleman well knows that the arrangements for debates in the House are not made by any Energy Minister. I know that he is interested in these matters, and I must tell him, on the question of delay, that the 42 recommendations to which he refers are wide ranging and extensive in their implications, financial and otherwise. Many touch on responsibilities of other Ministers, including matters of transport policy, building regulations, and local authority finance—which are all matters for the Secretary of State for the Environment. Therefore, it would be wrong to anticipate the considered collective judgment of the Government. None the less, the Government recognise the importance of reaching a view on the issues as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in developing the smaller North Sea oilfields.

Development of all 13 of the commercial fields listed in Appendix 9 of the 1975 Brown Book is proceeding satisfactorily, and appraisal of many other discoveries, some of them small, is also being carried forward.

In the case of some of the smaller fields, is it not a fact that the combined effect of growth in costs and the size of the total Government "take" is so depressing that oil operators see no incentive in bringing the fields to production? Despite the early prevarications of the Secretary of State, will the Government explain the extent of the setback in production plans that has led to a downgrading of estimated 1985 oil production from 175 million to between 100 million and 150 million tons?

The Government have not made any downgrading in oil predictions for 1985. Furthermore, we believe that our taxation proposals take fully into account the needs of the small and marginal fields. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to remit royalties in appropriate cases. We are concerned that the marginal fields should be developed so that we utilise the whole of the potential of our existing oil resources. There is no evidence to indicate that the taxation structure will inhibit such an aim. If the hon. Gentleman wishes us to reduce the rate of taxation more generally, he should say so.

Is it not the case that the United Kingdom currently enjoys a much greater share of industrial activity generated by our offshore oil exploration than was the case two years ago?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to our attention. It is far too often assumed that the British industry supplies only a small proportion of the amount of equipment for offshore oilfields. I remind the House that out of 19 platforms so far ordered, 13 have been, or are being, built in this country.

In view of the potential of the small oilfields, which no one denies, will the Minister say what steps are being taken within his Department or the Offshore Supplies Office to monitor developments in technology which have been taking place affecting the exploitation of those smaller fields currently being developed? Is he satisfied that he is receiving sufficient information about the problems and the techniques from the oil companies concerned?

We have found oil companies to be co-operative on these matters. I am not aware of any feeling in the Department of Energy that the companies are not being forthcoming on this matter. On the wider question of technological development, the hon. Member will be aware that an Offshore Energy Technology Board has been set up under the chairmanship of the Chief Scientist of the Department of Energy. The Board is already doing useful work, not only in examining better techniques for exploiting small and large fields but in looking to the next generation of oil equipment, so that this country may be in the lead in providing that equipment not only for our own fields but around the world.

Since the remission of royalties was announced by the Government as an important feature to encourage the development of smaller fields, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not think that it is about time that the Government published a White Paper dealing with the principles on which they would be prepared to remit royalties?

I shall consider that suggestion. Perhaps it is significant that at the moment there is no application before the Department for the remission of royalties.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding operations of North Sea oil supply boats.

None, Sir. The hon. Member may have in mind his recent letter, which was concerned with a crane barge and to which he will receive a reply.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not satisfied with the situation in which oil rigs operating in the North Sea are not under the full control of authorities in this country? Will be consider the position in the United States, where there is flag preference in relation to offshore oil developments and to the supply boats, with a requirement that the crews should be of American origin?

The hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the crane barge situation and responsibility for offshore matters, and I do not wish to intrude on that correspondence. On the more general question, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the steps that the Government have taken to ensure a full and fair opportunity for British equipment, including British ships, in the servicing of North Sea rigs. The recent memorandum of understanding and code of practice reached between the Government and the companies—I understand that 40 of the 42 member companies of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association have already signed it—is a very important step towards maximising the contribution of British industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has yet decided whether to acquire the British Petroleum shares which were purchased by the Bank of England from the Burmah Oil Company.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr Hoyle) on 3rd December—[Vol. 901, c. 598]—no decisions have been taken on the disposal of the shares

Does my right hon Friend agree, as it is now nearly a yea' since the Bank of England acquired these shares, that a Government decision on this matter is long overdue? Does he not consider that it is contrary to the policy of the Government that a company like BP should be in public ownership—as it has been for the past year—without being subject to public control? Before my right hon. Friend takes a decision on this matter will he consider carefully the value and the advantages of having a publicly-owned oil company operating as part of the British National Oil Corporation?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. On the other hand, the Government have to take account of a number of considerations. That is why we have not yet reached a view of what we should do. The position of British Petroleum over the years since 1914, when Mr. Churchill bought 51 per cent. of the shares, has been seen as a special one. A great deal of its business is under taken overseas on the basis of arrangements with the Government which have persisted for a long period.

Before the Secretary of State extends the Government's sticky fingers still further over BP, will he bear in mind that the company is believed to have a better credit rating than the Government? Does he agree that this is a sad comment on the Government's recent policies?

I certainly accept that the majority public holding in BP, initiated by Mr. Churchill, has proved the value of a creative relationship between the public and the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the argument that American pressures on BP are behind the pressure on the Government not to acquire the Bank of England shares? Will he make plain his own views on this?

I do not want to comment on what my hon. Friend has said, except to say that in the relationship between the oil companies and the Government there are always a lot of pressures. I shall rest upon the decision that the Government are to take, taking into account all of these factors.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications for public safety of current and likely future developments in nuclear power in Great Britain.

The safety control of nuclear installations exercised by the Health and Safety Executive under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will continue to provide the necessary safeguards for current and future developments in nuclear power.

As there is continuing uneasiness, much of it, I believe, unjustified, will the Government give a higher priority not only to speeding up the nuclear programme but to reassuring the public about its safety aspects?

There is public interest in nuclear power and I do not think that it should be dismissed. Nor should the matter be resolved simply by the intensification of information on one side or the other. What we want is for people to be aware of the nature of the nuclear programme and what is involved. There should be much more openness in the publication of information, and people should have the opportunity of knowing more about it when they put forward their viewpoint. That is the policy I aim to pursue.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress being made in the construction of the first of the steam generating heavy water reactors at Size-well, in Suffolk?

I have taken the opportunity of having a report made to me about all parties concerned, including the Board, the AEA, the NNC, and so on, and I am satisfied that the work is going on at a proper pace. It is a very big project, to implement the policy decision reached in the summer of 1974. I am not anxious to hasten it beyond the speed that those concerned think to be appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the percentage increase in domestic coal, gas, electricity and paraffin prices, respectively, from March 1974 to the latest available date.

The average percentage increases since March 1974 in domestic gas and electricity tariffs, including fuel cost adjustments, have been 34 per cent. and 87 per cent. respectively. The NCB's prices to merchants have increased by 57 per cent. and the maximum retail price of paraffin, which took effect from 8th December 1975, was equivalent to a 32 per cent. increase over the March 1974 price.

Is my right hon. Friend able to give the House a report of progress in the discusions that he has been having on the question of electricity and gas tariffs? Is he able to assure us that he is resisting the insidious campaign to get him to do away even with the modest restructuring of tariffs which has happened since the Government took office?

I can report to my hon. Friend and to the House that Ministers and officials have been wrestling with the problem of tariff structures for some weeks, if not longer. I hope that we shall be able to publish some of the calculations that we have made, so that people who think that there is an easy answer to the question of tariff restructuring—I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend thinks that there is, but some people do—will appreciate that it is very difficult to handle the problem in this way. I am well aware of the pressures to which my hon. Friend referred.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department make any calculation of the proportion of the £6a-week permitted wage increase likely to be taken up by increased energy costs this year?

Not without further notice

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is probable that the Plowden Committee has made some observations on the subject of tariffs in the electricity supply industry? When will the Committee's report be made generally available to hon. Members?

I understand that it will be published as soon as possible. It was made available to me just before Christmas. In view of my hon. Friend's question, I shall make inquiries.

Is it intended that the tariff studies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred shall also take account of the differential impact on industrial tariff pricing and consumer tariff pricing?

I do not want to be pressed to say how much we shall be able to publish and what studies would be relevant, but it is my general intention to make public as much as is possible. These are very complicated calculations. There is a tendency to suppose that small users and poor users are one and the same, which they are not; and the cross-relationship between industrial and domestic tariffs is difficult but very relevant, because there will be further tariff increases in the fuel industries during 1976. Therefore, the more information on these matters that we can make public, the better.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will comment on the prospects for current and proposed exploration of oil both off the English and Welsh coasts and inland in both England and Wales.

A number of promising sedimentary basins exist in these areas and small quantities of oil are already being produced from some of them. More exploration will be necessary to define further potential.

If the exploration is particularly successful, commanding attention will be paid to it, but will my hon. Friend confirm that the successful search for coal which has been undertaken in recent years suggests that the long-term wealth of resources in that fuel is likely to be of greater significance than that in the oilfields off Britain and inland in Britain so far discovered or expected?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's comments. Anyone who considers the overall energy scene will realise that although oil resources may be measured in terms of decades coal resources are measured in terms of centuries. It is extremely important to keep this sense of balance when examining energy questions. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that there are almost as many rigs exploring for coal in this country as there are in the North Sea exploring for oil and gas.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in the further fuel economy advertisements issued by his Department, he will draw public attention to the possibility of reducing central heating bills by up to 35 per cent. by the use of humidifiers.

No, Sir. I am not aware of sufficient evidence that savings of this order are widely achievable by the use of humidifiers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing answer? If I send him a fuel-saving news-sheet published by the Humidifier Advisory Service, which is located in my constituency, will he examine the impres- sive evidence put forward in it, to the effect that fuel savings of the order mentioned in the Question can be achieved? If he is convinced by the arguments in it, will he reconsider the matter?

My reply was based on the technical advice received from the Department of the Environment. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to examine any evidence that there may be in support of the claim made in his Question, I shall do so.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what steps are being taken to follow up paragraphs 19 to 22 of the White Paper concerning co-operation with oil-rich countries.

We maintain regular contact with Arab funds on co-operation in the development of poorer countries, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. Joint projects with several funds are already under way or at an advanced stage of negotiation.

That answer is welcome, but does my right hon. Friend think that there might be a case for some institutional arrangements between the countries of Western Europe and the oil-producing countries to examine large-scale schemes in which technology on one side and resources on the other can be matched?

We have a development division in the Middle East that is handling contacts both with the multilateral Arab funds and with the Arab funds. Whether there should be a European dimension to this is something to which I should like to give further consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what his Department is doing to follow up the references to feasibility studies in the White Paper, particularly given the standing of British consultants—engineering and management—in the Middle East? Does he see any role for his Department in helping some of those consultants to get a share of the feasibility studies for the less well-to-do countries, through Arab money?

Once a feasibility study has been carried out and it leads to positive development it is open to British firms to compete on equal terms. Many of them do win contracts on their merits as a result of such developments.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement about progress achieved in planning for the introduction of an earnings stabilisation scheme for developing countries as foreseen at the Lomé Convention.

The European Commission, in consultation with the member States and the developing countries participating in the Lomé Convention, is now planning in detail for the introduction of the earnings stabilisation or "Stabex" scheme provided for in the Convention. This involves making arrangements for statistical reporting and for the processing of claims. The scheme will cover the years 1975 to 1979 inclusive, but no payments can be made until the ratification of the Lomé Convention is completed, probably early in the second quarter of this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the middle of last month the position was that a sufficient number of developing countries had completed the ratification processes but only three member countries of the EEC had ratified, and that this country had not clone so? Has Britain yet ratified?

Yes, very recently. Both Houses of Parliament aproved the necessary motion before Christmas and our ratification has just been notified. As I said in my answer, we expect the whole process to be complete by the end of the second quarter of this year.

Is not this scheme a model that could usefully be imitated in relation to developing countries generally? Did not Dr. Kissinger suggest something on these lines at the Special Assembly of the United Nations in September? Given the difficulties of securing agreement on commodity schemes, should not the Government support measures of this kind?

These matters are under discussion in many different fora. One forum has been the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund. Later this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making a statement on that, which I hope my hon. Friend will find satisfactory. There will be ongoing discussions in the UNCTAD conference in a few months' time and in various other ways. There is much in this Stabex scheme from which we can learn, although applying it globally would involve a great many complications.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be any formal liaising between the operation of the Stabex scheme and the IMF compensatory financing scheme? Would it not be rather unfortunate if we had two competing international schemes?

Inevitably this becomes a rather complicated picture. Clearly both the IMF Secretariat and the European Commission will be in touch about what is happening on both fronts.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will supply funds for the development of agriculture in Namibia.

I hope agriculture and rural development would have high priority in any British aid programme provided to Namibia after it attains its independence. I expect that agriculture will feature in our small bilateral training programme for Namibians living outside Namibia.

Does the Minister agree that some help in the meantime might be a practical way of assisting the United Nations Council in Namibia, particularly in the light of the General Assembly's resolution establishing a fund for the country?

The only practical help that we can give in the meantime, which is on a very limited scale, is training for Namibians living outside Namibia. If the hon. Member is suggesting a bilateral aid agreement with Namibia, that would have to await independence. It could be done only on a Government-to-Government basis.