asked the Secretary of State for Energy when last he had discussions with the Norwegian authorities concerning North Sea oil and related matters.

My right hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to do so yet, but he hopes it will be possible to meet Mr. Gjerde, the Norwegian Minister of Industry, before long. There have been frequent exchanges between officials, however, the most recent being a meeting between the Permanent Under-Secretary of my Department and Norwegian officials on 16th March.

In view of the disquiet, certainly in some Norwegian circles, that there was an element of unfair competition in tendering for the supply of materials for British operations in the North Sea, may I assume that as a result of those talks at official level the "Buy British" policy will apply on these occasions on the basis of "all other things being equal", as it were, and that harmonious co-operation will continue between our two countries?

At the meeting to which I referred, full and fair opportunities for the industries of both countries on both sides of the line were discussed. The policy of the British Government is that our industries must receive a full and fair opportunity in the United Kingdom sector. We also hope that many of our companies will be able to obtain orders on the Norwegian side of the line, on the basis of their competence and proven reliability.

The trade unions in Norway seem to have better access to offshore rigs and platforms than is the case in the United Kingdom. When is it likely that facilities similar to those that exist in Norway will be offered to trade unions in the United Kingdom?

The Government are certainly aware of the difficulty that faces some trade unions relating to access to offshore establishments for recruitment purposes. We are actively discussing this matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman is correct; there is a condition—how effective it is, I am not sure—in the Norwegian licensing.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest available figure for the total amount of oil extracted from United Kingdom oilfields in the North Sea.

1·81 million tonnes as at the end of February. Figures are published monthly in the Department of Energy's publication Energy Trends.

Would the rate of extraction be substantially altered if the Government took firmer steps to favour British employment interests in North Sea oil contracts? In particular, as in the past we have managed to get only about one-quarter of the contracts for rigs, will my hon. Friend consider putting a ban on foreign rigs which do not measure up to our standards of safety and structural regulations?

When my hon. Friend talks about rigs, I think he is referring to mobile exploration drilling rigs. In case there is confusion, I ask the House to bear in mind the large number of contracts we have got for fixed production platforms. Of the 20 either installed or ordered in the United Kingdom, 14 have been built here and six abroad. Of the six which went abroad, four were for concrete platforms—the orders for which went abroad at a time when we did not have the capacity—and two were for steel platforms, made at a time when our steelyards were very severely stretched.

Order. Answers should be reasonably brief, just as the questions should be, as long as the question is answered.

As the real benefit will come from the flow of oil rather than from the offshore jobs, what negotiations has the Minister of State had with the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Trades Union Congress with a view to steering towards Scotland those Scottish resources which have been liberated by the oil flow?

Our concern is with the oil prospects in all parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland has a large share. Very lengthy discussions take place with the Agency through the means of the Offshore Supplies Office.

By how much money have the British people benefited by the extraction of this 1·81 million tonnes of oil?

Because of the taxation aspect, it is early days yet to assess the value. The costs of the installation have to be recovered before petroleum revenue tax flows. Revenues are coming in already. If my hon. Friend tables a specific Question, I shall try to answer it.

Will the Minister of State take every opportunity to remind the Scottish National Party and the people of Scotland that two-thirds of the oil lies off Shetland, which has no wish to be attached to an independent Scotland or a Scottish Assembly—a fact that totally undermines the economic case made, in respect of oil, by the SNP?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to remind the Scottish National Party and the House of that fact. It would be great folly to make the assumption that if Scotland some day became independent Shetland would not stay with the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister of State accept that one of the signal failures in offshire exploration has been the failure of the nationalised British Steel Corporation to win orders for underwater pipe?

It is regrettable that we were not able to obtain more orders for underwater pipe. However, credit must be given to the British Steel Corporation for obtaining a large share of the onshore work.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many yards in the United Kingdom are building production platforms; how many are currently looking for orders; and how many orders he anticipates are likely to be placed in 1976.

Six United Kingdom yards are currently building oil production platforms. All United Kingdom yards are looking for further orders, although the timing of such orders varies in importance as between individual yards. The number of orders that may be placed this year is not yet certain. I am currently having talks with oil companies about their field development plans.

Is the Minister aware, however, that he totally ignored the advice given during the passage of the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act, when it was indicated that there would be over-capacity in the yards, and that about £24 million has been sunk or guaranteed and no orders have come? Will he indicate whether he intends to subsidise yards along the lines of Laing, or whether he wants the British National Oil Corporation to provide the necessary facilities?

I think that the most regrettable aspect of what the hon. Gentleman has said is his total failure to realise the damage done to this industry by its not having concrete platform production yards available in the past during the period when the party that he supports was in Government. We lost six orders—four for concrete platforms—at a time when we had little capacity to acquire them. The present Government have righted that situation. On the whole, we prefer to take the risk of providing the capacity rather than not having the capacity to meet very important orders for this country.

Does the Minister admit that the Government have made a serious error in their estimate of the number of yards required? Will he assure the House that the jobs and welfare of those already employed in established yards will not be put at risk through any question of Government intervention and direction towards yards in which they have invested money and which have not been able to attract any orders?

I think that it is far too early to pass comment on whether these yards will be able to obtain orders, and when. We regard it as absolutely vital to establish concrete platform facilities. For one thing, it is still hard to determine the type of platform, and even individual oil companies are uncertain whether they will require steel or concrete platforms, because so much depends on the condition of the sea bed where the platform is to be located. For this purpose the Government will deal fairly with all yards involved. The important thing is that we are able now, on the concrete side, to offer a variety of range and design. We shall no longer suffer the under-capacity problems of the past. It is important to stress this matter, because I believe strongly that our yards, on both the steel and concrete sides, have become increasingly efficient over the years and can face competition with confidence.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue general directions to the electricity and gas boards to ensure that, by computer programming, customers are always automatically charged at the tariff rate which will produce the lowest possible account.

This would not be practicable, since for electricity the cheap off-peak tariffs are appropriate only for consumption at specified times, whilst for gas the system of optional tariffs requires that each tariff applies to a whole year's consumption.

Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that it seems quite intolerable that quite a large number of people, as I understand it, are paying more than the tariff that they need to pay on the basis of their actual consumption? Will he accept from me that some of us who have had dealings with the minimisation problems in this area feel that the problem is not as difficult as he suggests?

My hon. Friend will have to accept that both industries provide publicity to consumers on the choice of the right tariff, and any consumer who is still in doubt can seek advice from his local showroom. As regards my hon. Friend's general point, no representations from the statutory consumer bodies for gas and electricity have been made to suggest that intervention by my right hon. Friend would be justified.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the average output per manshift for National Coal Board coal mines for the last five years.

The overall average output per manshift in hundredweights for NCB coal mines for the last five years is:

I am grateful for that answer. Besides the low level of increase, taking a trend, what success have the Government and the Coal Board had in finding alternative employment in areas where there are low-output, high health risk and high-cost coalfields?

If the hon. Member tables a Question to the relevant Secretary of State I am sure that he will be happy to answer him. If what prompted the hon. Gentleman's Question is concern about the general condition of the mining industry, I am happy to be able to tell him that there was an improvement in output per manshift in February, when the figure was 46·3 cwt. The Coal Board's projected target for 1976–77 is 46·5 cwt.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that the fall in the international value of sterling and the effect this has on our oil import bill and, therefore, our balances of payments makes the need for a really effective coal industry more important than ever before? Does he further agree that the present productivity deal is a failure, in that the award has been paid only once? Will he urge upon all those concerned the need speedily to arrive at a productivity deal that truly reflects the tremendous effort made by so many people in the industry?

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman that a very strong and viable coal industry is in the best interests of this country. I have said before from this Dispatch Box that increased coal consumption can help Britain to fight back towards economic recovery. The question of the productivity deal is primarily a matter between the unions and the National Coal Board. The agendas for the various forthcoming conferences show that this is a matter that will be discussed by the unions in an attempt to resolve the problem the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has given show that productivity has increased? Will he assure the House that there will be no sacrifice of men's lives and limbs in the pursuit of productivity? Does he not agree that coal mining is one of the most dangerous of occupations, that the Opposition who make these criticisms have never dirtied their hands in their lives, either by mining coal or by doing anything else, and that safety first is the important motto for the mining industry and, indeed, for all other industries?

There is certainly a great need to have a very efficient coal-producing industry. A study of the history—particularly the recent history—of discussions between unions, the Coal Board and the Government is rewarding. For example, my hon. Friend will find from a study of the document issued following the tripartite inquiry that was held when this Government came into office in 1974 that although the three parties engaged in a great many discussions relative to the progress the industry could make, one thing that was paramount in all the discussions was that safety was to be at the fore, and that coal must not be won at the expense of miners' lives.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that in many other countries, including the United States of America, Germany, Poland and Russia, miners who have completed 25 years' service are allowed to retire early, at the age of 55, with full pension? In view of the Prime Minister's support for early retirement, will the Government carry out negotiations with a view to working out an early retirement scheme for miners?

I said in answer to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that discussions are always taking place on these matters at miners' annual conferences. It is no secret that for many years it has been the policy of the National Union of Mineworkers that there should be early retirement for miner-workers. When we debated this matter in Standing Committee, I said that we must be perfectly clear about what we mean by early retirement. I hope that we mean proper pension provision and that we are not talking about early unemployment for miners.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the facilities for storing radioactive nuclear waste at power stations.

The facilities for the storage of radioactive waste at nuclear power stations are formally approved by the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with the conditions attached to each nuclear site licence granted by the Executive under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. These conditions are enforced by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. I am satisfied with these arrangements.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, although reprocessing is becoming a bigger and more profitable business, the fact is that Wind-scale is full up? Is he aware that waste fuel rods are now being stored at above the desirable level at Bradwell and elsewhere? Is it right that we should take on the additional importation of waste for reprocessing, in view of the present situation?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is accidentally slightly misreporting what is happening. It is the used fuel elements which are being used and stored at Bradwell. There has been some holdup at Windscale, but within the next eight weeks a 500-tonne extension to the ponds at Windscale will be available. The reprocessing work that is now being discussed with the Japanese and others will not begin until 1987. As the House will know, we were discussing the provision of capital for the plant and the contract itself. We do not import waste; we import the used elements, which are then reprocessed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House, and those outside it, will be grateful to him for the way in which he has so clearly pointed out that nuclear waste is not stored at power stations? It is the irradiated fuel elements which are stored at power stations, and no reprocessing of those takes place other than at Wind-scale. Is my right hon. Friend clear in his mind—and if so, will he assure the House—that the facilities that we have, and are about to extend, are adequate to cope with the coming expansion of the use of nuclear fuel in power stations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to clarify the situation. It is one that causes concern to the public. They often find it confusing and somewhat alarming, because they have been led to believe that we import nuclear waste and keep it, whereas we import fuel elements and reprocess them. Under the new contract we shall be in a position to send back the nuclear waste in a vitrified form.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why we are sharing the Japanese contract with the French when, if there had not been delay, we would have had the whole contract?

The hon. Gentleman, who is usually very precise, is on this occasion somewhat inaccurate. There is an arrangement between the French and the British for reprocessing work. I have had no part in the management decisions of BNFL. There is a rapid expansion of this business, and I believe it right that we should get our part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will take the necessary steps to enable the Central Electricity Generating Board to initiate heat-and-power schemes.

Under Section 50 of the Electricity Act 1947, the CEGB has power to provide heat obtained in connection with the generation of electricity to buildings in neighbouring localities, or for any other useful purpose. The section also provides for the Board to obtain certain additional powers which it may need. I am also considering the recommendations of the Plowden Committee on this point as on others.

Does my hon. Friend accept mat this very practical recommendation of the Plowden Committee should be considered independently of the main proposal of the Committee's Report, so that the matter can be finalised as speedily as possible?

I would not disagree with my hon. Friend. The matter is receiving active consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the CEGB is at the bottom of the European league in terms of overall thermal efficiency in power stations, as well as in terms of the amount of electricity produced in combined heat-and-power production? Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that because of this our electricity prices are rising much faster than those of our European competitors?

I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman in his assumption or his assertion. I have answered the hon. Gentleman on this matter before. He will be aware that there is a study group, under the chairmanship of the Chief Scientist. That group is currently considering combined heat-and-power production. It expects to report later this year. As a result of errors committed by previous Governments, including the previous Conservative Government, in estimating the availability of cheap energy, we have not always pursued the right policies. The assumptions and assertions that the hon. Gentleman is making are not quite accurate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the percentage increase in the cost of electricity since 28th February 1974.

I am informed by the Electricity Council that it is about 86 per cent. overall in England and Wales.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a horrifying figure? Perhaps he will explain why the prices of the goods and services supplied by nationalised industries seem to rise much faster than the prices of those supplied by the private sector.

I am surprised by the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased the Question. I shall try to improve his memory. It was his then right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in May 1973, said mat the whole question required urgent reconsideration and that action had to be taken. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's Question is that the Government have given it urgent consideration and are acting on it. The fact is that the Yom Kippur war took place in 1973. The whole of the Western world has had to face many economic troubles arising from that war. The price of oil increased fivefold. The hon. Gentleman will have to concede that that is a factor.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to allow electricity prices to rise at the present rate, when we know how crucial they are to the budgets of low-income families, is damaging to the Government's price restraint strategy.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, but if the Conservative Government had taken action the problems that we are now having to tackle might not be with us. My hon. Friend will be aware that, having considered the matter from the point of view of the poor consumer, we believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is best equipped to deal with this serious problem.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that millions of elderly people are frightened to turn on their electric tires because they dread the electricity bills that are on their way? Will he stress to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that there should now be a substantial increase in heating allowances, so that they can pay their bills when they come in in May and June?

No one in the House would disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Electricity charges are a colossal burden and are causing great concern among pensioners. However, it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who took action and tried to alleviate the hardship. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read what the hon. Gentleman has said about increased heating allowances.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the phasing-out of subsidies for consumers of gas and electricity.

The gas industry expects to make a modest surplus for the financial year ending this month. The electricity boards expect to make losses totalling about £65 million, for which compensation for price restraint will be considered. I am not expecting losses for either industry for the financial year 1976–77.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that from the Opposition side of the House there is support for him for the courageous policies that he is following? Does he accept that, where there is real hardship among consumers, that hardship is best alleviated by special assistance to the consumer in individual circumstances rather than by subsidising the prices of gas and electricity?

I hope that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues will read the opening part of his supplementary question.

Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Government introduced the policy of subsidisation, and that until then the electricity supply industry had had a proper return on capital?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the Labour Government inherited a formidable problem, which was entirely the result of the then Conservative Government, no doubt with an election in mind.

Will the Minister ensure that the gas industry is not penalised for its modest profit by the imposition of a selective tax upon it?

Any question of taxation would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to comments recently made by heads of other nationalised industries. The Government have not reached any decision on this matter. This country is fortunate in having fairly low gas prices, flowing from decisions taken by previous Governments that the British Gas Corporation should have a monopoly position on offshore gas.

Will the Minister confirm that price increases for electricity in the South of Scotland Electricity Board are higher than those in the United Kingdom generally, but that increases that have taken place in England under the fuel price escalation clauses have not taken place in Scotland during the year?

As was made clear by the South of Scotland Electricity Board when the announcement was made—and I should make it clear that this is not part of my direct ministerial responsibility—there was no increase over the whole year. During that period in England and Wales I understand that three price increases were triggered off by those clauses. In Scotland there was no price increase at all in that period; in England and Wales there were several increases.

Is the Minister aware that we fully realise that the return to economic pricing for the electricity industry necessitates the substantial price increases to which he has referred? Is he also aware that that fact will concentrate public attention on the question whether people are receiving value for money from the electricity services? In that context, will he take account of the desirability of instituting some kind of efficiency audit of generating activities of the CEGB, in the light of the table in paragraph 417 of the Plowden Report, which shows that we are at the bottom of the table in terms of thermal efficiency?

It is difficult for me to give my reaction to that Report until the Government have fully considered the whole of it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion must be seen in that context. I shall bear in mind what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the salary structure for BNOC executives.

The salary structure for BNOC executives is a matter for the Corporation.

Why is the Minister so coy on this subject? It is surely a matter of increasing public concern that the heads of nationalised industries do not appear to want to remain in their positions for very long. Does not the difficulty in recruiting people to BNOC make it necessary for a statement to be made on this subject?

The question of salary levels is important, but whether or not I were to make a statment in the House I do not think that it would assist in or detract from the process of obtaining appropriate executives for BNOC. What I have said is in line with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said on the subject of the National Enterprise Board. This matter was examined by the Lord President on a previous occasion, and all parliamentary precedents are in favour of the statement I have made.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government plan is for Lord Kearton to receive more than is paid to the Chairman of British Leyland? What is the Government's view on the BNOC's recent acquisition of a London branch office—not even a headquarters—at a rent per annum of £180,000, including a 2,000 sq ft luxury penthouse flat on the third floor?

I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. The salary of Lord Kearton has not yet been decided. It is a Government decision. The hon. Gentleman's last remark is typical of the sniping by Conservatives whenever the topic of a publicly-owned asset comes up. I wish those same hon. Members were as vigilant in applying their strictures to the private sector.

Will the Minister explain why the salaries of the executives of BNOC are a matter for the Corporation, whereas the wages of ordinary trade unionists are a matter for the Government in consultation with the trade unions? Should not the Government consider bringing into this post somebody who has a Socialist commitment, rather than somebody who is bought in via market forces at a huge and lavish salary, quite out of tune with the ordinary people who create our wealth?

My hon. Friend obviously misunderstands the nature of our incomes policy. The Government do not fix the wages of anybody. The system operates by agreement between the trade union movement and the Government. As for BNOC employees, I have every confidence that Lord Kearton will carry out the responsibilities placed upon him by Parliament and the Government. I know that he is dedicated to the success of BNOC, as are the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many tons of anthracite, coking and other kinds of coal, respectively, have been imported into the United Kingdom over each of the past three years; and what is the value in each instance.

With permission, I will circulate the figures in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend say how long these contracts have been in operation? Is it not incredible that, although we have coal stocks of 30 million tons, at the same time we allow imports of coal? What about the promise we made to the miners that we would use all the coal they produced? What about foreign markets? Are we not doing anything on that score? Is not the situation ludicrous—

Order. The Minister already has more than enough to answer in the hon. Member's first four supplementary questions.

Please may I continue, Mr. Speaker, because I am coming to the important part of my supplementary question?

May I urge hon. Members that if they have an important part of a supplementary question they should put it first.

Is it not ludicrous to encourage the coal miners to produce more coal when we do not use it but, instead, rely on coal imports?

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

My right hon. Friend met Mr. Hawkins last Friday on a visit to Aberthaw and Hinkley Point power stations, and he is frequently in touch with him.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the Secretary of State for Energy discussing with the Chairman of the CEGB the use of so-called benign sources of energy for electricity generation? In that connection, will he say what view the CEGB takes on the recent statement by the Energy Technology Support Unit on the contribution of benign sources to meet our power needs by the year 2000?

My right hon. Friend is actively concerned and involved in these matters. The Energy Technology Support Unit has undertaken work on the use of benign sources at some CEGB installations. The Board recently invited me to visit one of the installations to see its work. Although it is important that we have these sources, we should not exaggerate their likely impact on the economy.

I agree with most of the points made by my hon. Friend. Contracts were entered into some time ago, and the circumstances have changed. I have made it absolutely clear to the Central Electricity Generating Board that I hope to see imports greatly reduced. Discussions are taking place between the two Boards. The CEGB has undertaken not to engage in further imports without consultation with the National Coal Board. I have set up working parties to see whether we can achieve more conversions to coal and stimulate our coal trade exports.

When the Minister next meets the Chairman, will he impress upon him the fact that unless the CEGB ordering programme for new power stations is revised we shall have no boiler-making capacity left in this country after 1978? Is he aware that highly skilled teams are beginning to break up, that many of those teams are going abroad, and that in the 1980s the CEGB will have to depend on highly sophisticated equipment, with all the maintenance that that entails?

My right hon. Friend has mentioned his concern from the Dispatch Box. We are well aware of this problem. Discussions have taken place with the industry to try to deal with the problem. One of the troubles has to do with the use of energy. Demand has contracted considerably. This is creating problems.

When the Secretary of State next meets the CEGB Chairman will he take the Under-Secretary with him so that the hon. Gentleman may get a firsthand briefing about the accuracy of the statistics that I quoted earlier, about the CEGB's being bottom of the European league for thermal efficiency, heat and power production, so that the Under-Secretary will not give me inaccurate answers, conveying the impression that I was giving inaccurate statistics?

If I misled the hon. Gentleman in any way, I apologise. I hope that he will accept that apology in the spirit in which it is given.

Will my hon. Friend tell us whether, when his right hon. Friend was at Hinkley Point, he discussed with Mr. Arthur Hawkins the possibility of a Severn barrage, which would be a potentially benign source of power?

Not that I am aware of. No doubt my right hon. Friend will write to my hon. Friend if he had such discussions.

When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of the CEGB may I ask him to make it clear—irrespective of any need for scraping together a few votes from hon. Members from coalmining constituencies—that he will not interfere with the CEGB's desire, on commercial criteria, to assist the electricity consumer by importing cheaper coal where this is shown to be possible?

As far as I know my right hon. Friend does not have any miner constituents. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comments about "scraping" votes applies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the question that he has just posed. He is suggesting that we should risk contracting our indigenous coal industry to obtain coal from abroad which might not be there when we need it. That would not be an energy policy; it would be lunacy. We must have a large indigenous coal industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many oil companies operating in the North Sea have stated publicly or in communications to his Department that they are not yet prepared to enter into discussions in detail with the Government on participation in the North Sea.

No companies have told me or my Department that they will refuse to discuss participation with the Government.

Is it not the case that Government meddling in North Sea oil has delayed progress and investment, exhausted the confidence and enthusiasm of the companies, and cost the taxpayers a great deal of money?

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. The rate of investment last year was higher than the year before and will be higher again this year. The participation talks are in progress. If BNOC were to take advantage of the options open to it, including the option for royalty oil, it would have available to it in the 1980s between 15 million and 20 million tons of oil. The plain truth is that after a year of wringing their hands the Opposition are seeing every forecast they have made turn out to be totally false.

Is it not a fact that one of the leading spokesmen connected with the Esso oil company has publicly intimated that he will not voluntarily participate in any agreement with the Government? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Gulf-Conoco deal—which gives a State option only to buy 51 per cent. of the oil and does not give 51 per cent. of the power—will not be a pattern that will be carried through in any further negotiations in which my right hon. Friend may be involved?

I read the report in the Financial Times on the day I had lunch with the President of Exxon when he was in this country. No such reference was made to me. The House should not mistake a negotiating position for the true position. My hon. Friend has referred to the Gulf-Conoco type of deal, in which the Coal Board is already a one-third participant to equity and investment with the other partners. If we take the examples of Burmah, the acquisition of Ninian and the control of Thistle, that is an acquisition of equity. With Tricentrol it is an arrangement of a different kind. The House will recognise that in advancing our policy of getting control of 51 per cent. of these resources the Government should be free to adopt whatever system seems most appropriate in individual cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that companies that have made major and effective contributions to the development of the North Sea oil resources but are not prepared to enter into voluntary negotiations will not be discriminated against in the next licensing round?

There never has been any discrimination in terms of nationality, nor will there be in the next round of licences. I must make some things clear. First, the Government are determined that their policy will succeed. There is no doubt about our determination, which is fully understood by the companies concerned. Secondly, from the outset it was made clear that participation would not be designed to alter the financial advantages of the companies. That is being dealt with by the petroleum revenue tax. Thirdly, many American companies prefer the British system of participation either to confiscation, as in the case of some countries, or the threat of divestiture, as in the United States.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, when he addressed the Overseas Writers Club in Washington in February, he said that he recognised the legitimate interests of the oil companies and understood their anxieties? May we assume that the participation deals with Gulf, Continental and Tricentrol, which do not add at all to State equity, are attempts to assuage those anxieties?

The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the fact that we inherited from a Government of which he was not a member an arrangement with North Sea oil which betrayed our national interest. We have sought to remedy that with licences that were already contracted with certain companies. In dealing with licences entered into by the previous Government we have sought to make arrangements that will safeguard our interests. That is fully understood by the oil companies. We need the investment and technology to develop the North Sea. We have no intention whatever of falling back on the policies that the Conservative Party tried and which did this country so much harm.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what further consideration he has given to the rôle of ODM in stimulating private investment in developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

I have decided to revive the Pre-Investment Studies Scheme, whereby aid funds may be used to underwrite up to one-half of the cost of pre-investment studies, subject to a maximum of £50,000, in respect of development to which the host Government attach priority.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he reconsider publishing a Green or White Paper to replace the policy as set out in the White Paper of 1971, which was ditched by his predecessor? Is he satisfied with the liaison between his Department, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade in matters concerning private investment in developing countries?

Many aspects of the White Paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred were maintained by my predecessor and have been in continuous operation. There has not been a great demand from the private sector for them. The scheme that I have mentioned was suspended by my predecessor, and I have decided to reinstate it. I do not think it is on a large enough scale to merit a White Paper on its own. I hope that private investors will take advantage of it as soon as it is offered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision that he has announced will give great satisfaction to British industry and will help to harness British industry to the essential task of development which private enterprise can fulfil?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I share his view that private investment has an important part to play in developing poorer parts of the world. I know that the hon. Gentleman would agree that this is no substitute for official aid to the developing world. More of both types of aid is needed.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing—in addition to the initiative that he has just announced—with his EEC colleagues to encourage industrial investment in the developing world by Western European countries? Is he prepared to consider taking an initiative in Europe, to help?

I have considered that. In general, private investors make their own decisions in the expectation of profit. This is a decision for them. Private investment is a useful part of the flow of resources. What the Government can do in these matters is marginal. I hope that what I have announced will be of such assistance.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what discussions he has had concerning the impact of the EEC common agricultural policy on imports from the 46 ACP countries which are signatories of the Lomé Convention.

The Convention guarantees the ACP countries almost completely free entry into the Community for their agricultural exports. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister for Overseas Development have kept its operations under review, and this has already resulted in significant improvements in the operation of the trade regime which was agreed at Lomé.

The theory of the Lomé Convention may be satisfactory, but what is happening in practice about imports of sugar and beef from developing countries? What is the attitude of the Community to the world reserves of grain, and the International Agricultural Development Fund?

There were difficulties about beef. We tried to resolve them and to achieve special arrangements. Botswana, in particular, now benefits from a 90 per cent. reduction in the third country levy. I cannot today answer my hon. Friend's question about sugar. He will have to table a Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that matter. However, he knows that the Convention guarantees access to the Community for 1·3 million tons of ACP sugar without payment of levy, and there is an arrangement for an annual negotiation on price.

Does the Lomé Convention give an unfair advantage to African countries as against other Commonwealth developing countries, such as India, in trading with the EEC?

We have made it clear that we are concerned about the Commonwealth Asian countries and the fact that some of the more populous Asian countries are excluded from the Lomé Convention. I know that when he meets the Development Ministers at a meeting scheduled for early next month my right hon. Friend will again be pressing particularly hard for the Community to implement what it accepted in principle, namely, a world-wide Community aid policy, which may particularly benefit the Commonwealth Asian countries.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what changes, if any, he proposes to make in the policies of his Department, in the light of the cuts in public expenditure announced in the recent White Paper.

The policies of my Department remain as explained in last year's White Paper, "The Changing Emphasis in British Aid Policies" (Cmnd 6270). The recent reductions in public expenditure as previously forecast do not affect the aid programme.

In view of the miserable proposal in the White Paper that there should be an immediate decrease in our aid programme for next year, followed by an increase of only 16 per cent. by 1980, and as the White Paper was rejected by Parliament, will my right hon. Friend tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have not a chance of meeting our commitment of 0·7 per cent. GNP aid to the Third World unless the Treasury makes a more generous allocation of funds?

My hon. Friend's reference to a reduction in 1975–76 arises from the fact that there was an underspending in 1974–75 which distorted the figure carried forward to 1975–76. But there will be an increase of 16·9 per cent. in real terms from next year over the following three years. I wish that we were doing more, but this is a civilised decision in relation to the fact that virtually every other public expenditure programme has been reduced for the years in question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider whether we should give aid to Mozambique until that country's ambiguous position regarding Rhodesia has been clarified?

No, Sir. The Government's policy of aid for Mozambique has been endorsed unanimously throughout the Commonwealth and was endorsed unanimously in the Security Council a few days ago, when a world-wide appeal for aid to Mozambique was made. The reasons for that are well known to the House. I wish that hon. Members opposite would give this policy the support it deserves on its merits.

Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's wish to spend more, does he agree that one of the most effective forms of aid is aid from this country which is backed by local contributions and local costs, particularly in the form of self-help schemes? Will he look at this matter in even greater detail than he promised in his last White Paper?

The policy in the last White Paper involved a more flexible approach to the question of local costs. The new arrangements for matching some of the efforts of the voluntary organisations will give a new dimension. In other words, we are moving along the right road, although not perhaps as quickly as my hon. Friend would like. There is the problem of the balance of payments restrictions. I hope that we shall do better still in future years.

Does my right hon. Friend not think it immoral for us to encourage, as we are doing, the hungry nations to spend their limited resources on sophisticated submarines, aircraft and tanks when what they really need and what they could buy from us is well-drilling machinery and teaching and medical equipment?

Those are the very projects that are being encouraged through the aid programme. As for disarmament, I do not think that it would be fair for me to comment on particular countries—it would in any case take too long—but the Government are in favour of multilateral disarmament, so that the entire world wastes fewer of its resources on weapons of destruction.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what assistance he is making available to the Government of Lesotho.

A grant of £7 million for development assistance has been made available to the Lesotho Government for the three years ending this month. In addition, there has been a full programme of technical assistance. It is hoped to sign an agreement shortly on the level of development assistance for the next three years.

I welcome that reply. What help, both financial and in the provision of educational and administrative staff, is it possible to give to the national university in Lesotho?

Since the national university of Lesotho was established last October, we have continued the supplementation benefits to British staff at the university and we hope to conclude an agreement with the Lesotho Government fairly soon to continue that form of assistance. However, I understand that the Lesotho Government are curently preparing an overall plan of their own for the development of the university. We shall give sympathetic consideration to any approach for assistance with that plan, bearing in mind what other donors may be doing.

In considering the implementation of the next three-year plan, will my hon. Friend give special attention to the question of the development of self-help co-operatives, both agricultural and otherwise, in co-operation with the Co-operative movement in this country in order to secure the maximum amount of mutual support?

We shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend said. We are aware of the need for further rural development in Lesotho. We are already doing a good deal in this respect, but we shall continue with it in our further assistance.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transkei, with economic problems similar to those of Lesotho, has expressed a wish to receive aid from Britain after independence, to reduce its economic dependence on South Africa? Would an application for aid be considered favourably?

It is not the policy of the Government at this time to assist the "home lands".

asked the Minister for Overseas Development how many countries in Africa receive aid through his Department.

Thirty-six countries receive aid directly. In addition, 12 regional organisations in Africa receive aid under the Ministry's programmes, and of course through these a number of countries receive aid from Britain indirectly.

Is it the Government's intention to ignore development in such places as the Transkei? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what changes the Government would like to see made before they give aid to the Bantustans?

The Government would like to see drastic and radical changes in the whole of South Africa. Aid to the Transkei is a very improbable development in the immediate future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us lucky enough to go to Africa occasionally and talk to Ministers, such as Mr. Kabaki, in Nairobi, in Ghana and Tanzania know that they feel that the Government are doing a first-class job, particularly in funnelling money to the poorest people in the poorest nations, which means that it is going to the bush where it is badly needed?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. He underlines the most important feature of the Government's aid strategy in Africa and elsewhere, which is to devote a larger and growing proportion of help to the poorest countries and to the poorest groups in those countries.

How many of the 36 countries spend part of the aid that they receive on arms?

In no case is the aid that we give available for spending on arms. I am speaking of development aid, which has nothing whatever to do with military activities.