asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that planned capacity for reprocessing nuclear waste will be sufficient to meet the total needs by 1985.

Discussions are taking place with BNFL and the generating boards about the investment required to meet planned reprocessing needs over the next 10 years.

Are there any plans within the next decade for the storing of untreated waste either underground or under the sea? If so, will the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the quantities?

If the hon. Gentleman puts down a specific Question on that matter, I shall be pleased to answer it. A number of Questions on this aspect have been answered before. Those answers had a fairly satisfactory reception. If the hon. Gentleman wants a detailed answer, I shall be glad to reply to a specific Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the Government's plans for more research into renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power.

We have recently announced a £1 million programme on wave energy. The other renewable forms are being assessed and, where appropriate, research and development programmes are being drawn up.

I am grateful for that answer. Bearing in mind the pioneer work that has been done in my constituency on both solar and wind power, can the Minister assure us that the possible scope for all renewable forms of energy will be discussed fully at the one-day conference next week?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There are papers out which embrace a discussion of that subject at the conference.

Is it not a fact that by the year 2000, despite North Sea oil, we shall not be self-sufficient in energy? Is it not therefore necessary to have long-term projects and studies not only of the sources of energy mentioned but of tidal power, particularly in terms of the Severn barrage scheme, which was first considered in 1921?

My hon. Friend is correct. Various projections have been made about the energy resources that we shall have in the year 2000. I assure my hon. Friend that, in addition to the plan that he mentioned, all kinds of geothermal and solar energy are being duly considered.

As the Department regards wave energy as potentially the most interesting renewable source, why is it allocating only £1 million over the next two years, which most authorities involved in the research regard as inadequate?

I am sure that the House would agree with the hon. Gentleman if we could spend more on these resources. However, I think he knows that the studies that are taking place on this matter are "at large" studies. Once the results are clear, without our embarking on gigantic, colossal sums of capital expenditure, it will be for the Government and this House to agree on the kind of expenditure that the hon. Gentleman visualises.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that the electricity boards are now pursuing his policy of removing obstacles to the installation of pre-payment meters other than for the largest customers.

Electricity boards install pre-payment meters on request in appropriate cases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is not strictly true, al- though I am sure it is not the Department's fault? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who has a sick husband and children at home, recently asked the North-Eastern Electricity Board to install a pre-payment meter and was told that she would have to wait a minimum of two years before it would be prepared to do so? Will he now see that the boards carry out the spirit of the policy laid down by the Secretary of State and recently readvocated by my hon. Friend in his report to his right hon. Friend?

I shall certainly draw the attention of the board concerned to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. The information that the boards have given to me and my colleagues on the committee is that they will install such meters on request in appropriate cases. My report on this matter is clear—that wherever a consumer requests a pre-payment meter, unless there are dangers it should be supplied.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we should be very grateful if he would consider sympathetically the installation of pre-payment meters, particularly if action on that front would enable the Government to disregard the recommendations of the review body in respect of the powers of disconnection held by the electricity and gas boards? Is he aware that there is a hard core minority of feckless people for whom debt is a way of life, and that the vast, silent majority of those who pay on time would bitterly resent their tariff having to be increased to cross-subsidise that small clement?

My view is that there has been a great deal of exaggeration in the figures put forward by both sets of boards as to the effect of ceasing the practice of disconnection. However, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement, my report is going to him and the boards are at liberty to put their views on the report to the Government before the Government contemplate action.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the installation of pre-payment meters is an essential element in any new policy of ending disconnections? Should not the Secretary of State first meet the electricity and gas boards to press them to end the practice of disconnecting anyone who cannot pay and, secondly, initiate legislation to deprive the boards of the power to disconnect?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for all the work he did on the review body. My right hon. Friend is meeting both kinds of boards in the very near future and has said that we shall hear the boards' views before any legislative action is taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even when a pre-payment meter has been installed the consumer's problems are not at an end? If a request is made for a meter to be emptied at other than the regular time, either because it is full or because the consumer is going on holiday and does not wish to leave a considerable sum of money in the meter, a charge of £2 is made by many boards for this service. Will my hon. Friend look into this matter?

I have already considered the matter. My report strongly recommends that the making of charges for emptying full meters should cease.

Is not the question of disconnection the prime responsibility of the social security services rather than of the people who pay their bills?

The Department of Health and Social Security has a responsibility for those consumers who come under its aegis, but many poor people who find difficulty in paying their bills are not in receipt of any form of social security benefit.

asked the Secretary of State of Energy if he will give details of any orders placed with the platform construction industry, or anticipated, during the course of 1976; and if he will make a statement.

No orders have been placed so far this year for major production platforms for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. I hope to be in a position shortly to say something further about future prospects.

That is a disappointing reply. Will the Minister of State consider adopting a new line of approach? Will he try to persuade his right hon. Friend, and his other right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, that a strong case exists for offering a further tax concession to companies which are prepared to develop marginal fields, for which many platforms could be required?

I hope to make an estimate of the number of platform orders likely to be placed between now and the end of 1977. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about marginal fields. We have had only one application for consideration for the remission of tax. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and look again at the matter.

Is there any joy in the contacts which Ministers have with Red-path, Dorman Long, and Albert Smith and other full-time officials of the AUEW and the shop stewards?

I have had a discussion with a deputation representing the yard. Graythorpe and Methil are the two most affected yards, inasmuch as work will shortly be complete. It will be in the summer or autumn of this year. The other four yards already have, on balance, reasonable work until the middle of next year. I am hopeful that there will be some developments here, but it very much depends on the oil companies.

Is a platform construction a ship, or is it just a run-of-the-mill platform construction? My hon. Friend should tell us, before we get into any more trouble.

You and I, Mr. Speaker, are not the authorities of Lloyd's Register of Shipping. I leave it at that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to establish an energy forum on a permanent basis as a development from the one-day energy conference.

I intend to develop ways by which a much wider public than at present can participate in the formulation of energy policy, but before deciding how best to do this I shall take account of any views expressed by participants in the conference.

As some critics are already suggesting that a one-day energy forum will create more heat and hot air than will be required to solve the energy gap, will the Minister consider formalising the forum on a permanent basis as an advisory body, more or less along the lines of the NEDC?

I am considering even at this stage how we may follow up the conference. Large numbers of people, including, for example, the CBI, representing industrialists, and consumer organisations which have felt excluded from energy policy-making, have asked to come. As it is, about 435 invitations are out. After that, we shall have to decide how to proceed. My own belief is that by proceeding in this way we are more likely to reach a consensus, and I am anxious to build upon a consensus, which we must do if we are to make sense of our policy.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House why he is introducing an Energy Bill when he is only just establishing a forum? Would it not be better to have the discussions first and the legislation later?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Energy Bill flows from international obligations and is in part the successor of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 introduced by the Government he supported. If we are to make sense of energy policy, the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that on-going decisions have to be taken. We want to open up the options for the future. I hope that the conference will help us to do that in a meaningful way.

As the conflicting personalities and policies of the energy industries are once again emerging from private into public, does the Secretary of State think that the time is fast approaching for the establishment of an energy commission responsible for all the energy produced in this country and the allocation of resources?

The last session of the conference is to consider how energy policy should be formulated, but I hope the understandable Press interest in the conflicts of policy that are known will not obscure the fact that the development of a sound energy policy is of great interest to this country and everyone who lives in it. I am sure that all those who come to the conference, including the leaders of the industries, the unions and others, will wish to contribute constructively, and this will make it possible to build new forms of policy-making for the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the steam generating heavy water reactor project.

The Nuclear Power Company and the electricity boards have agreed the main parameters of the SGHWR design. The NPC is now preparing the documents describing the reference design and these will shortly be submitted to the electricity boards. Work is being carried forward in parallel on the component development programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the statement made recently by Mr. Peddie, a member of the CEGB, to the effect that the steam generating heavy water reactor was proving more difficult to build than Concorde? If so, as our nuclear energy development is founded on the SGHWR, is not special investigation required by my right hon. Friend?

As my hon. Friend knows better than most—because the Select Committee of which he was chairman recommended it—the Government decision on this was announced in 1974 and it was not a view shared unanimously at the time. I have made it my business to maintain close contact with the chairmen and officials of the main organisations connected with the programme. Although there has been some delay, design work is in progress and I am satisfied that there has been no obstruction of the programme. I regard it as my responsibility to take a very close interest in this matter.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the Cavendish Laboratory in today's newspapers that by the late 1970s we could be once again a major importer of energy? Is he aware that the report recommends that we should therefore increase our efforts in the use of coal and nuclear capacity? In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) about the steam generating heavy water reactor, should we not be examining alternative systems, such as the light water reactor or the AGR?

I am not reopening the question of the decision taken in 1974. The AGR has now come onstream and the early operating experience of it is, I am advised, very satisfactory.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of turbo-generation and its effect on the employment of thousands of people in C. A. Parsons, in my constituency? Will he give some indication of the state of the turbo-generator industry and say whether he is considering advancing the hardware orders from March 1977? Will he give an assurance that there will be no more slippage in the timetable, and that it will be adhered to?

I think it would be wrong to advance by political fiat decisions in many important matters, including safety standards. At the same time, I am aware of the problems of the turbo-generator manufacturers, although this is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. But there is pressure from the mining industry for the advance of the Drax B station, and we must not think of turbo-generator orders only in connection with nuclear generation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the development of the North Sea oil and gas fields during the 1976 season; and if he will make a statement.

So far this year one new gas and seven new oil discoveries have been announced, one new oil field has come onstream, and by the end of the year a further four are expected onstream. I am satisfied that 1976 will be another successful year for the development of our North Sea resources.

Does the Minister of State accept that the political activities of his Government have held back for up to two years decisions on the question of whether or not to develop viable fields? Is he aware that while the Government are relinquishing some of their Draconian powers this delay has caused lasting damage to supporting industry and to Britain's cash flow from the North Sea?

I do not think that is true. The Chairman of Conoco told us recently that the North Sea was the most attractive investment area in the world. The rate of development and of discovery is remarkable. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Brown Book that we have just published he will see that the figures are consistent with the development that was expected.

On the immediate problem of the events in Sullom Voe, which could jeopardise the whole of the North Sea production programme, do not the Government think that the conciliation procedures of the Department of Employment ought to be brought in?

I am hopeful that the delicate position in Sullom Voe will be resolved. Reports indicate that we may have an agreement shortly. The situation looks better than it was.

Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this is Scottish independence day for oil, and that Scotland's requirements can now be met from production? Will he also make sure that the Department makes this fact known as widely as possible?

There is no doubt that there is a success story to be told about North Sea oil, and we shall tell it.

Will my hon. Friend say what is the total Government stake, as a percentage, in all the oilfields? Will he also say how much the National Coal Board lost as a result of the participation of the Government in the Gulf-Conoco deal? This knowledge will be important to the miners when they debate other issues at the forthcoming conference in a fortnight's time.

My hon. Friend, who is a very good Socialist, must recognise that when assets are transferred from one public concern to another they are within the public sector. National Coal Board assets are not owned by the miners; they are owned by the State, by the people. There is no loss in that regard.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the country that there is no such thing as Scottish oil, any more than there is such a thing as English national gas, which at the moment is used in Glasgow? Will my hon. Friend also make it clear that most of the financing in "Scottish" oil, so-called by the Scottish National Party, comes from the British people as a whole, from British industry rather than from Scottish industry?

It is American oil.

It is not American, English or Scottish oil. It is God's oil, and we should be thankful for it.

May I congratulate the Minister on his appearance at the Dispatch Box after an absence of six years, and say how delightful it is to see him there?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I agree absolutely with what he said.

Can my hon. Friend estimate what proportion of ongoing capital from this country is being spent on developing the North Sea?

Not enough.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will help to reduce the uncertainty felt by certain of the major oil companies by bringing forward the date set for the fifth round of North Sea licensing applications.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for a further round of licences to maintain oil and gas exploration activities in the Continental Shelf.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now make a statement about the consultations he has had about the next round of offshore oil drilling licences.

As I announced in my reply on 27th May to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell), I have published a consultative document setting out my proposals for the fifth round. I am in touch with the industry and trade unions about their views on these proposals.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding to my Question.

I thought it right, and I thought the House agreed, that after the experience of the last round of licences we should consult about the terms and conditions which would get the best bargain for us without endangering the success of the round. As to the rôle of BNOC in exploration, it is of such critical importance that the British people should have some extra knowledge of this exploration. The cost of exploration is nothing like as high as the cost of development, and at a modest guess BNOC should normally be—

Taxpayers' money.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is taxpayers' money, but the benefits accruing from exploration are formidable, and why we should seek to support foreign countries against our own investment I do not understand. How quickly we do this depends upon the pace at which we can settle the median lines with the French and Irish, but I think it better to do it in tranches rather than by means of the enormous round that was held in 1972 followed by a long gap, which tends to create problems with industrial development to meet the demands for equipment.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the participation agreements under the next round will make BNOC a full and active partner with at least a 51 per cent. stake in all oilfields with a majority say in decision-making, including the placing of orders to help employment prospects? Can we have real public ownership instead of the "phoney" negotiations carried out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

It is intended that BNOC, when negotiating for licences, should satisfy us that the national interest is safeguarded. Whereas before we have had the problem of trying to change the thoroughly bad licensing arrangement reached by the previous Government, this time we are starting afresh. Therefore, our opportunities are greater and the BNOC rôle will be the development of the policy for which I have now assumed responsibility. We have in the case of Gulf/Conoco achieved a real participation through the NCB(Ex) investment. There is also the Gas Corporation involvement. In the case of Burmah, BNOC has taken over the major responsibility. Shell and Exxon are now ready to enter into talks with BNOC, and this makes meaningful the policy on which we are determined.

Is the House correct in assuming that both the number of blocks offered and the stricter time limit covering the relinquishment of blocks have been designed to facilitate a level of expansion and development which will bring orders and relief to the hard-pressed offshore industries? If that is so, will the Secretary of State indicate what he hopes will be the advantages in terms of additional orders for drilling rigs and production platforms that might be expected in this year and in 1977–78?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I announced the fifth round last September I publicly said that we wanted to give a fillip to development in the North Sea, with the possible spin-off of more jobs in this country. We have published the consultative document, and the Minister of State, whom I welcome back, is involved with me in the consultations. We shall seek applications and we hope to award licences to get the 1977 drilling season under way. We hope to optimise and maximise the benefits to the United Kingdom industry deriving from the new round.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the benefits from North Sea oil will go to the whole of the British people and that a minimal amount will go to foreign investors who wish to exploit it quickly?

It is not for me to speak for the Almighty, but the Prime Minister allocated those responsibilties to the Minister of State. We are trying to get the best possible bargain for the people of this country, compatible with the need to utilise the technology and massive investment required to develop the resources. We can achieve a better deal than the previous Government. We think that oil companies are coming to realise that we are determined that our 51 per cent. policy will be carried through. In the new round of licensing we have the chance to maximise the benefit for the people.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the way to get the best possible bargain is to make sure that the criteria for the granting of new licences is the performance and resources of the oil companies rather than meekness in the face of the Government's participation proposals?

I do not wish to be sharp with the hon. Gentleman, but if I had taken the Opposition's advice during the passage of the Bill the country would be no better off in any respect, and a great deal weaker in its capacity to defend its national interest all over the world. The nation States and Governments are seeking to achieve a commanding position for their own people in the benefits deriving from oil, but we must also proceed to participation by way of understanding with the oil companies, and by legislation. The legislation that we have adopted has been absolutely right. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Shell and Exxon are meek in their approach to the Government—and I see that he hopes that they are not—I will leave on the record that in the event of conceivable difference of opinion the hon. Gentleman hopes that Shell and Exxon will maintain their position.

Will my right hon. Friend tell some hon. Members on the Government side of the House, without equivocation or qualification, that what he is about in the future licensing deals is not something that is a bit better, is not to increase Britain's rôle, but is to take over the majority ownership of those licences with which he will be concerned? Is he aware that we are not terribly interested in what will happen in the long or medium term, but we are interested in what he will do in the short term, with the licences that are coming on to his table?

My hon. Friend knows the answer. Not only has our policy been made clear; the consultative document is out, to give the trade union movement, the oil companies and industries concerned an opportunity to comment. My hon. Friend knows that in order to develop the North Sea substantial investment and technology are required, and that we intend that the British interest in that is represented by 51 per cent. participation. It is no good my hon. Friend dismissing that, because it was the policy on which he and I were returned to the House, and we are seeking to apply that policy in the next round of licences.

I approve the Secretary of State's laudable intention to give us as much local employment as possible, but will he consider definitely moving the headquarters of the BNOC to Glasgow, where it is alleged to be, instead of the decision-making and work being done at the branch office in London?

The hon. Gentleman knows about the arrangements for the headquarters. He also knows that BNOC works from Scotland but that there is some work that requires to be done in England and some in Aberdeen. He would be making a great mistake if he supposed that the work of BNOC is not of itself helpful to the development of resources which are for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has recently had with the chairmen of the gas, electricity and coal boards and the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation regarding the formulation of a national energy policy.

I am in regular and frequent contact with the chairmen of the nationalised industries for which I am responsible. I last met the coal, gas and electricity chairmen on 20th May, and I look forward to meeting them again, with the Chairman of BNOC, at the National Energy Conference on 22nd June.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for taking the initiative in calling the conference? Does he recognise that while offshore oil and natural gas resources are a bonus to the energy needs of the country, coal will play an important part for many years to come, and that when gas and oil are exhausted we may wish to exploit our coal resources?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend was in Cardiff on Saturday, when I said that when the present oil and gas reserves were exhausted, and present nuclear power stations had been concreted over, we should have 300 years of coal reserves at our present rate of consumption. Although much of the glamour attaches to oil and gas, coal remains the foundation of our energy policy. That is reflected in the energy planning that I have in mind.

When the Secretary of State is drawing up a national energy policy, will he bear in mind that the profit motive that is so obvious in the private sector can do a great deal of good, and can even rub off on the industries which are nationalised and nationally controlled? Will he ensure that that fact plays a prominent part in his discussions?

Everybody recognises—I certainly do—that when massive sums of money are required for investment a proper return should be expected from that investment. But I also think that with the uncertainties associated with world energy supplies, notably the sudden quintupling of the price of oil in 1973, to try to build an energy policy on the basis of reproducing in the public sector an imitation of a market economy, as was done before 1973, was a disastrous error, because it omitted wider considerations of the need for long-term planning. If we are to engage in the development of resources, we must also be sure that those resources are utilised. That is why a coal investment programme must be accompanied by a coal-bum programme and why we must relate all these things in a rational way. There are long lead times and great uncertainty. This does not lend itself to the reappearance of Adam Smith as the guider of the nation's energy policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to the gas and electricity industries not to raise prices by more than 10 per cent. during the remainder of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to the gas and electricity industries to freeze their prices for the coming 12 months.

Any proposals for gas and electricity price increases must be within the Price Code, and will be most carefully scrutinised by both the Price Commission and the Government.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government's policy that there should be no further subsidies to consumers of gas and electricity?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we inherited from the previous Government the most chaotic structure and that the fuel industries had been driven into loss by Government policy. The hon. Gentleman also knows what the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as announced in 1974, has been. As a result of the increase in prices—notably in electricity, which has more than doubled in two years—serious hardship has been caused. We are seeking to tackle the problem in as many ways as we can, but the basic economic decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in 1974 stands.

In view of the pressures to relax the Price Code, does not my right hon. Friend believe that it would be a good idea to recommend to the gas and electricity boards that they should freeze their prices for 12 months? Would it not be a good thing if they followed the lead of British Rail? Is it not true that increases in gas and electricity prices particularly affect families on low incomes? Would not a price freeze be greatly welcomed by them?

The problem of rising prices is central to the problems facing the country as a whole. I do not dispute that price freezes all round would be welcomed, but questions about the Price Code would have to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. We have tried, in so far as it falls within the remit of my Department, which is quite narrow in this respect, to examine various aspects, including the suspension of disconnections for old people, the review that my hon. friend the Under-Secretary undertook, and creative participation in discussions on how to deal with the hardship suffered by those who are undoubtedly badly affected by increased prices. As every hon. Member knows, those people include, in particular, the weekly wage earner, who may suddenly be confronted with short-time working and unemployment. The normal electricity bill is of a scale and magnitude that is exceptionally difficult for him to cope with. That is why prepayment meters and the other proposals made by my hon. Friend merit very careful consideration. It is a difficult question. We are not helped by being reminded by Conservative Members of the mess we inherited from them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has drawn up to achieve the use in the future of a higher proportion of British equipment in North Sea oil exploration and production.

The Government are satisfied with the successful working of the procedure set out in the Memorandum of Understanding and Code of Practice negotiated with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association last November, which provides for full and fair opportunity to be given to British industry to compete for the supply of goods and services to the United Kingdom offshore market.

If that means that the Minister believes that the industry is at fault in not being more adventurous and positive in producing equipment, and so on, will he gather together representatives of the industry for a conference before the next round and include this as a theme at the forthcoming National Energy Conference?

The hon. Gentleman would do us a great favour if he looked at the Brown Book and saw that the offshore industry had responded very well. It is now subscribing about 50 per cent. of the supplies to the North Sea. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is right that the Government should be in constant touch with representatives of the industry. We have regular meetings with them and we want to do better.

Is not the truth of the matter that in order to succeed the United Kingdom industry must not only supply the North Sea but export to markets as far apart as China and perhaps Brazil, which have similar problems? What have my hon. Friend's officials learnt since he unfortunately had to return urgently from the Houston conference without spending time there about how we should increase exports in this area?

They have learnt a great deal. We had today the pleasure of receiving the Indian Minister. The Indians made known to us at the offshore exhibition that they are interested in our offshore technology. We have this very day been in discussions with them about the possibility of contracts. We have listed a number of firms in Great Britain which may well serve them well.

Is not the failure to construct underwater pipe a scandal that should be laid at the door of the nationalised British Steel Corporation? Is not this a market which, even at this late hour, we can break into, perhaps in conjunction with the Norwegians?

This is a sore point for both Great Britain and the United States. In the Alaskan pipelaying exercise it is not American steel that is being used. We have been very anxious that the common gas collecting system prescribed by the Williams-Merz Report should use British steel. The British Steel Corporation has agreed to look at the exercise and to consider the possible development of its Hartlepool plant to that end.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the outcome of the UNCTAD Conference as it affects overseas aid.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the outcome of UNCTAD IV so far as it affects the responsibilities of his Department.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has already made a statement to the House on the outcome of UNCTAD IV. On debt, within the aid context, we are pledged like other donor countries to respond quickly and constructively to individual requests made to us for help within the relevant consortia and consultative groups. On the other main policy issues concerning aid, the time and detailed discussion needed to reach agreement led the conference to pass on the respective proposals of the developing and developed countries to the next meeting of the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board for discussion in September.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement to which he referred was not exactly rapturously accepted by the House, in so far as some of the trade elements in that statement had Community and common fund features? What are the development implications in policy and practical terms of helping the poorest nations?

Our strategy is now concentrated on aid to the poorest countries and the poorest people within them. It was precisely because of our misgivings about how far a common fund might assist in the transfer of resources to the poorest that we had certain reservations in this respect.

Is the Minister aware that disappointment with the results of the UNCTAD conference are not confined to his side of the House but were strongly voiced from this side as well, and that we expect a debate on the matter at the earliest possible opportunity?

My right hon. Friend dealt with that after his statement last week. Having been present for the last nine days at the conference, I do not share that sense of disappointment. Those who feel that we should have proceeded to the establishment of a common fund should note that, notwithstanding the reservations honestly expressed by the British Government, we have now stated that we shall go into preparatory talks with good will, and our ultimate position will be related to what comes out of those talks.

Does the Minister agree that the question of commodities and the stabilisation of commodity markets is of fundamental importance to the Third World as a whole and to the poorest countries? Will the Government from now on align themselves with the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries rather than trail miserably behind the reactionary attitudes of Western Germany and the United States?

I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has an unrivalled concern for the interests of the Third World, will agree that, above all, we must ensure that the ultimate arrangements reached in stabilising the commodity trade are genuinely in the interests of the poorest countries. Up to now, that has been far from certain. We are determined to make progress in that direction.