asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has involved the electricity, coal, gas and oil industries in the development of a nuclear strategy for the United Kingdom.

I am in regular contact with the energy industries about the formulation of energy policy, which includes the role of nuclear power.

Given that our coal, oil and other resources give us a breathing space of perhaps 10 or 20 years of self-sufficiency, what estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the contribution that could be made to our energy use by alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power? Has he done a similar study to that conducted by the Lockheed Corporation, which has estimated that 20 per cent. of the United States' energy use could be supplied by wind power by the year 2000?

All the information that we have on this subject has been published and I shall send it to the hon. Gentleman so that he may have an opportunity to study it. There is no doubt that these benign alternative sources of energy are available at a cost and after a period.

Does my right hon. Friend think that this country needs a green field oil refinery?

That is another question.

The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about an energy policy for years, but when are we to have a policy for the United Kingdom and when will the Government work out a realistic arrangement with the EEC?

As far as the EEC is concerned, the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully and will know that I went to the Energy Council in February or March ready to endorse the recommendations from the Commission, but difficulties arose elsewhere. We had a meeting in Luxembourg last week, when there was some serious discussion. I made the point, with which I think the House will agree, that protection of energy investment that has already taken place is a necessary preliminary to any energy policy that relates to minimum support price.

Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there is no danger of nuclear development being given second place in the thinking of his Department? Is he aware that the industrial future of this country depends on our having an adequate nuclear capacity?

My hon. Friend knows, because his Select Committee is working on it, that discussions are in progress about the steam-generating heavy water reactor, and I have made clear that there must be proper public debate before a decision is reached on the fast breeder. I think that the House will believe it right that matters of this importance should be discussed before decisions are made.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what advice he has received from the management and trade unions employed in the gas and electricity supply industries concerning the importance of the ultimate sanction of disconnection in order to secure the payment of energy bills; and if he will make a statement.

The electricity and gas industries have expressed their concern over recommendations that their statutory powers of disconnection should no longer be exercised. As my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd August, it has been agreed with the industries that they should apply a code of practice designed to protect genuine hardship cases from disconnection.

Has the code of practice yet been published? If not, when will it be published? Has the Minister read the courageous speech of the Secretary of State at the Labour Party conference on 1st October, when he resisted attempts to remove the ultimate sanction of disconnection in cases where there is an unreasonable withholding of payment of charges for gas and electricity?

The code of practice has not yet been published. Discussions to finalise it are still going on between the Department of Energy, other Departments and the industries concerned. The opinion of trade unionists in the industries will be taken into account. I think that my right hon. Friend was saying in Blackpool that the Government had decided that, for the moment, the statutory power of disconnection should not be removed. This matter will be kept under review, particularly in the light of the working of the code of practice.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is the closest possible consultation between local electricity and gas board officials and social workers, since early notification of a failure to pay gas and electricity bills is often a symptom of hardship and ought, therefore, to be drawn to the notice of those authorities?

We absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. Whatever the code of practice may say, its usefulness will depend on the spirit in which it is applied at a local level.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of tons consumed at coal-fired power stations over each of the past six years; what are the estimated consumptions over each of the next three years; and if he will give the comparable figures in million tons of coal equivalent for oil-fired power stations.

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

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a feeling throughout the industry that the Government are lax in making a decision about a new coal-fired station? When will they make up their mind to build a power station so that, when the coal at Selby starts coming on stream, the power station will be available to use it? Will he also take into account that the plant-making industry is greatly disturbed because of the lack of work, and that if we are not careful, because we are reluctant to make a decision, we shall lose highly-skilled teams of men to other countries, which would be a great loss to this country?

I confirm the importance of this decision. My hon. Friend knows that I have met the management and unions on this matter. The papers that have come in, particularly on the trade union side, have been of the highest order, and have contained great detail. They have been put before Members and the Government. There has never been any doubt in the Government's mind that another coal-fired station would be linked with Selby. With the postponement of the SGHWR, which was announced in the summer, the question of another order for a coal-fired station is very much in the Government's mind. However, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement of the decision.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the process of getting rid of fly ash from power stations, thousands of hectares of good land are being destroyed? Will he institute research to see whether this fly ash can be put into derelict mines, and so preserve the countryside?

I shall certainly consider that point.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the urgency of the Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)? Does he appreciate that it is not good enough constantly to tell us that the Government are considering, reviewing and thinking about and that they have got the matter in mind? It is time that some action was taken. Thousands of people will be thrown out of jobs in the power generating industry if action is not taken. When all these factors have been taken into account over this long period, will my right hon. Friend get something done?

My hon. Friend knows very well, because I have discussed this matter with a number of people over a long period, that the Government have been working on it for a considerable period. They set up an inquiry through the CPRS to consider the impact on the plant industry. The responsible Minister is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. There has been no lack of urgency by the Government. If my hon. Friend discussed this matter with those concerned in the industry, he would discover that they are well satisfied with the extent to which the Government have taken this problem on board.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been most unfair towards him and that we appreciate that there are serious difficulties attending any Government decision that will add to the total installed electricity capability when there is already a substantial shortfall in demand?

Undoubtedly one of the problems confronting the Government is that there has been no energy planning for a long period and there have been wide fluctuations in forecasts by the CEGB which have gravely affected the prospects for continuous work in the industry. These matters must be sorted out. At the same time, it would be a tragedy if this country were to run any risk whatever of losing capacity in the heavy electrical industry, upon which so much of our future at home and abroad depends. The Government have made this clear at every meeting with delegations from the industry, both management and unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have been made by him to OPEC about an increase in the price of oil.

Her Majesty's Government have not made recent representations on oil prices.

What kind of balance should be struck with regard to oil pricing generally between Britain's long-term interest as an oil producer and our present position as a heavy consumer? Is it still the Government's intention to press the EEC for a minimum floor price for oil, currently quoted at $7 per barrel?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". Last week my right hon. Friend persuaded the Council of Energy Ministers to look at this matter in greater detail, in the hope that we would reach agreement by the end of this year, but that remains to be seen.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the future of oil prices, it is essential that indigenous fuel resources, such as that recently found in the Vale of Belvoir coalfield, should be exploited as quickly as possible, with due regard being paid to the relevant environmental factors?

Yes. I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

When are we proposing to apply to join OPEC, and will our attitude then change?

In order to qualify, we would have to comply with the OPEC rule that one-half of our entire exports is in oil. We have a long way to go before we achieve that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish comparative data on the expenditure and delay to the SGHWR project compared with the budget figures to the latest available date.

I announced in July that expenditure on the SGHWR in 1977–78 would be reduced by £45 million. Expenditure in 1976–77 will be approximately £15 million less than previously expected. There has, in effect, been one year's deferment of the project.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am afraid that he has not answered my Question. I wanted to know how much had been spent against that which had been budgeted. Bearing in mind that he has not given me the figures, may I have an assurance that he will not take any final decision on the future of the SGHWR before the reference design has been completed in 1977?

I am sorry if I did not give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he sought. Many are published. If there has been an omission, I shall see that it is remedied. It has always been clear that the order for a power station of this kind would have to be cleared against the nuclear inspectors, and so on. That would be normal practice. Here we have a combination of a technical slippage, the need for public economy, and a rundown in current forecasts of demand which made it possible for the slippage to occur.

When does the Secretary of State expect to have an updated cost estimate of the SGHWR programme?

I shall look into that and see what the latest figures are. In fact, it has turned out to be more costly than was at first thought.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the SGHWR nuclear reactor programme.

The National Nuclear Corporation has sought authority from my right hon. Friend for the Nuclear Power Company to carry out an assessment of the SGHWR, PWR and AGR systems. He has agreed to this on the understanding that it will in no way jeopardise the nuclear industry's ability to start work on site on an SGHWR early in 1979. Agreement to this assessment does not mean that the Government are committed to its conclusions.

If evidence accumulates to the Minister showing that the SGHWR programme is proving too difficult and too costly, and will not be commercially viable in export markets, would it not be more sensible to reach an early decision for us to cut our losses and to allow the British nuclear industry the opportunity of developing a system—the AGR or PWR—that would at least win us some export orders?

My right hon. Friend cannot reach a decision until some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned have been covered. In that connection, the views of the Nuclear Power Company are germane to the discussion.

As we already have the Magnox, AGR and the SGHWR systems either actually working or in development, what on earth is the point of reviving the arguments about the PWR?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have Magnox and AGR stations, but we do not have a commercial SGHWR station operating in this country. My hon. Friend will know from his membership of the Select Committee that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has written to my right hon. Friend advising him to look again at the choice of thermal reactor.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has made to assist the less-well-off to cope with their fuel bills during the coming winter.

Detailed arrangements will shortly be published for the scheme that my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd August to allocate £25 million to help those likely to have the greatest difficulty with electricity bills this winter. The gas and electricity industries, together with the Government, are making good progress with the code of practice designed to help poor consumers to make suitable payment arrangements and to protect them from disconnection.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement about the imminence of details. Is he aware that it is not merely electricity which is worrying people, but coal, coke, oil, paraffin and—

Solicitors' fees.

—other fuels for which people have to pay? Is he further aware that elderly people do not consider this to be a joke, whether the joke is made on one side of the House or the other? This is one of the greatest and most imminent problems that will worry many of them to death before the winter arrives.

The Government are well aware of the problem of heavy bills in the winter, particularly in the case of the elderly. The point about allocating money for electricity bills is that almost everyone receives an electricity bill, as opposed to bills for other fuels. We felt that help ought to be concentrated in the area where it would be most effective. Many elderly people live in houses heated only by electricity. Another point about the scheme is that, with limited public resources at the Government's disposal, we recognise that we cannot help everyone.

Will the Minister assure us that people who experience difficulty in budgeting will have restored to them the facility of prepayment meters?

An important part of the discussions on the code of practice has been concerned with the availability of prepayment metres. I cannot anticipate the publication of the code, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall have his point very much in mind.

When does my hon. Friend expect the Government to reply to the Select Committee report on this matter? What confidence has he that electricity and gas boards will carry out the instructions given to them by him and his colleagues, bearing in mind that I have had continued correspondence with his predecessor, instancing examples of occasions when the boards do not carry out the spirit of what I know to be the Secretary of State's intention?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "As soon as possible". The answer to the second part is that trade unionists within the industries are concerned about the attacks being made upon them which seem to indicate that they do not care about the welfare of people who have difficulty in paying their bills. I know that is true in the gas industry, because I used to represent trade unionists in that industry before I came to the House. It is also true in the electricity industry. We should bear in mind that there are people in the industries who are as concerned as are many hon. Members to ensure that people who are in difficulty with their bills are treated fairly. As I said in answer to a previous question, our aim will be to ensure that the spirit of the code of practice is interpreted effectively at local level.

Does the Minister recognise the difficulties which arise because so much of the assistance given with fuel bills goes to those who are already in receipt of social security? Does he also recognise that there are many categories of people, particularly among the working poor, who experience difficulty with energy bills and do not receive any benefit?

We are aware of this problem. That is why the £25 million scheme will cover those who are in receipt of the family income supplement as well as those who are in receipt of supplementary benefit. But the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who are pressing me, in the next breath will be pressing the Government to cut public expenditure. They cannot have it both ways.

Does the Minister agree that improving home insulation, particularly for the less-well-off and the elderly, is an effective and sensible way to help them cope with their fuel bills? Is he satisfied that enough is being done by interdepartmental discussion to ensure that this method is progressed?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. We understand that 66 per cent. of all local authority housing has no loft insulation of any kind—and a large number of elderly people live in local authority accommodation. The Department of Energy is concerned to try to improve this situation. One of the aims of the recently announced job creation project, to which £70 million has been allocated, is to improve loft insulation in local authority houses for the very purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made towards the conversion of sea wave energy into electricity.

This Department, on the advice of the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, has set up a research programme to examine the feasibility of large-scale extraction of sea wave energy. Details of this programme were given to the House on 29th April this year. The work is being directed by the Wave Energy Steering Committee which reports to our Chief Scientist.

If the experiments go well, what proportion of British electricity requirements does the Minister foresee ultimately coming from this system?

I know that there is a certain amount of hilarity about this in the House, but the amount of energy in the seas around the United Kingdom is in the range of two to four times the present-day output of electricity. It is difficult to predict the development rate at which we shall be able to exploit wave energy, but the figure of about 4,000 mW electrical equivalent by the end of the century has been judged by scientists as a reasonable forecast, so I think that the hilarity should be restrained.

Is my hon. Friend aware that an official report declared the viability of tidal power in the Severn Estuary more than 50 years ago? Will it take equally long for nothing to be done about sea wave energy?

There is a tide in the affairs of men—. As the Science Research Council, Harwell and other notable institutions are examining this matter very seriously, and as the Government have great energy, something will be done.

In view of the early work done in Scotland, will the Minister confirm that research will continue in Scotland, bearing in mind the significant wave reactions off the Western Isles?

Yes, but that is nothing to the Labour typhoon that is about to sweep away the SNP.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of electricity generation and its effects on the turbine generating industry; and what are the possibilities of transferring some of the CEGB research staff to the turbine generating industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the ordering policy of the nationalised energy industries in relation to the British power engineering industry, in the light of the forthcoming CPRS report on the industry.

I have received numerous representations about the present problems of the power plant manufacturers and have held useful discussions with those concerned. These problems are being considered by the Central Policy Review Staff in the report that is due at the end of this month. Staffing questions are a matter for the industries concerned.

To prevent the collapse of this industry probably for ever, and the loss of thousands of jobs in Manchester, Sheffield, Rugby and the North-East, will the Minister decide now to proceed with Drax B early in the coming year? If he will not give a decision this afternoon, when will he announce his decision?

I share my hon. Friend's concern, and so do the Government. The maintenance not only of jobs now but of capacity for the future for home needs and export development is of essential national importance. In the past we have seen much of our engineering capacity disappear. I am not in a position to announce a decision today, but it follows from what I said earlier about the deferment of the SGHWR that a coal-fired station—Drax B is coal-fired—will come forward for consideration in this context. I know the industry's anxiety, but I think that the industry recognises that the Government should approach this matter seriously and that the industry is ready to allow us to complete our consideration before announcing our conclusions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a desperate need for his Department to clarify the Government's overall long-term strategy planning for the power generation industry? Does he also accept that an early statement would be greatly welcomed by many industries, including the boiler-making industry, which is so important to the economy of western Scotland and the employment prospects there?

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not possible for the supplying industries to be able to plan their future unless they can be sure of a steady flow of orders coming from the industries concerned. One of the most powerful reasons, among many others, for having a proper energy planning mechanism is that reasonable security should be available for those who have so much to offer on the industrial side.

My right hon. Friend referred to exports. Although the placing of the order for Drax B would be very acceptable, it would relieve matters only in the immediate future. Would my right hon. Friend care to go into the question of the export effort with the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade and try to get the manufacturers of turbines in this country to make more effort in the South American market? I understand that Venezuela is placing largish orders for hydroelectric and generating plant, to which the manufacturers in this country appear to be deliberately turning a blind eye.

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is not only the home position but the export possibilities which should decide the future shape of the industry. As we are such a big energy supplier, and will become a bigger one, it would be right for this country to aim to supply not only the fuel but the equipment which allows that fuel to be used, including heavy electrical equipment. I shall look into the two cases that my hon. Friend has mentioned and refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

If, in the light of the Central Policy Review Staff report, the Secretary of State requires the CEGB to order a power station ahead of its own assessed requirement, will he ensure that the public is made aware of the subsidy involved in that decision?

All the implications, and the long-term energy planning, need to be thought about most carefully by the House. One cannot, on the one hand, attempt to take advantage of the daily fluctuations of market forces and, at the same time, expect to retain any decision over the future of these key fuel industries or their supplying industries. The cost of that against the cost of losing capacity and having to import fuel, which would restrict the demand for heavy electrical equipment in future, would have to be confronted fairly and squarely. It is with that in mind that I am determined to develop a proper long-term energy policy.

None the less, will the Secretary of State now answer my question—when this decision is taken, will he ensure that a proper amount of information is given, so that the public can make their judgment?

I think this information is made public. The Ince B Station was brought forward and it has been necessary for some subvention to be made by the Government in pursuit of that interest, which, as far as I recall, was taken by the previous Government. There is no desire to withhold information on these matters. What I am saying is that if it is necessary to do that, it would be for the longer-term interests, and we might then have to consider what the short-term cost was.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the likely level of activity in the United Kingdom platform-building industry in 1977.

As I announced recently, the Government believe that there is a reasonable prospect of three, perhaps four, platform orders by the end of 1977 or early 1978. Our aim is to ensure that United Kingdom yards are given a full and fair opportunity to compete for these orders.

Is the Minister aware that the platform building industry is in real danger of disintegrating due to lack of orders? Bearing that in mind, will he ask the Secretary of State to make an early decision on the Williams and Mertz report about the proposed gas collection line, as this could assist the platform yards to diversify in their attempts to keep going?

We are seriously considering this proposal by Williams-Mertz. There is a second stage on which I hope the Government will soon be able to make a statement.

Has my hon. Friend considered discussing with the ordering part of the industry the possibility of bringing the orders forward from the dates he has mentioned, since many yards are faced with a short-term unemployment position? Will he consider the possibility of discussing, perhaps with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a forward stock ordering scheme, so that once orders are placed they can be processed with the utmost possible speed?

On the first part, yes. It is my job daily to urge on the different companies which come to see us about these matters our anxiety to give confidence to the industry by their bringing forward the orders, or at least bringing forward the announcement of orders. That is almost as important. I do not think that having stock platforms is a realistic proposition. [Interruption.] I mean modules, not platforms. That might have been looked at more closely than has been done so far. I would prefer that we dealt with real orders rather than orders in stock. In respect of actual orders, I would point out that exactly a year ago there was no such thing as the Murchison field. Now there is a platform being ordered by Conoco for the Murchison field. Therefore, these matters can change quite rapidly.

Will the Minister comment on the announcement today about the prospects of a platform being set up in the yard at Portavadie, which is not yet operational, although it has cost a lot of Government money? Will he comment on the effect of initiating action in that yard and other yards, such as Ardyne and Kishorn, producing concrete platforms, where, if orders are not placed in future, there will be a drop in the labour force?

The hon. Gentleman knows as much as I do about this matter, namely, that some companies may prefer to have a particular design. If they prefer to go to Portavadie in order to acquire a different design from those constructed in other yards making concrete platforms, they are free to do so. Where the Government would be remiss would be in closing down Portavadie and excluding ourselves from orders in future and seeing them go to another country.

How does the Minister expect us to have a proper share in the industrial development of North Sea oil as long as British companies and nationalised industries have to borrow their money at 15 per cent., whereas foreign competition can borrow its money at 6 per cent.?

That is really a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for me.

In view of the present unexpectedly high extraction rates from the North Sea oilfields, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now urgent for his Department, together with the Department of Industry, to move fast to conclude planning agreements not only with the rig building industry but also with all those industries connected with oil, such as the refining and the petrochemical industries?

I do not think that my hon. Friend lacks confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend, who has such a profound view of planning agreements, or would suspect that he is not trying to push ahead as fast as he can. In my own personal experience of my right hon. Friend, he is moving as fast as he can.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he intends to take over the latest report from the Royal Commission on the Environment.

I am considering the specific recommendations in the report which relate to my responsibilities. The Government will take full account of the report in reaching decisions on nuclear power.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern about the way we deal with nuclear waste products? Does he take on board the recommendation in the report that we should set up a nuclear waste disposal corporation to do development work for dealing with nuclear waste and report back to the Department of the Environment and the Minister of State for Agriculture?

I am well aware of the growing concern, not only in this country but world-wide, about this problem, the magnitude of which may not have been fully appreciated in the early days. The recommendations made in the Flowers Report are the ones that the Government will consider. At the moment I am not able to say anything in answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question about the waste disposal corporation.

As we are using 60 per cent. of the refining capacity, will the Secretary of State refer to the Royal Commission the question of the good sense or otherwise of setting up a green field refining site at Nigg?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence. In view of the fact that he has asked me whether I will do that, I am bound to say that I shall consider it and write to him on the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the best Government response on the Flowers Report would be a period of intelligent delay, during which our nuclear industry would be able to satisfy beyond doubt some of the very sensible, stringent, safety and environmental requirements suggested in the report?

That argument is one that emerges from one reading of the report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being the only hon. Member who responded to my request to put questions about safety, which I have now put to the Nuclear Inspectorate. A combination of economic factors and uncertainties about safety, not yet entirely resolved, and the fact that the forecasts are not as strong as they were and that energy supplies may be more plentiful than we thought, justify us in taking adequate time to be wholly satisfied about that question.

May I take it from that answer that, on balance, my right hon. Friend is against the fast breeder reactor rather than for it, and that he takes the view that the dangers exceed the benefits?

What I have said today—I must stick to it, although I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to push me further—is that these are matters of very great public interest. There are uncertainties that should be publicly aired, and the Government are determined that sufficient time will be available for information to be made public before a decision is reached.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Brian Flowers and his colleagues deserve the warmest congratulations of the House for having initiated a debate with the most profound implications for the future structure of our society? How does he hope that the House will take part in this debate? Does he intend to publish the Government's reactions to the Flowers Report, or is he pressing the Leader of the House for time, so that we may have an early and considered debate on this matter?

I shall certainly convey to Sir Brian Flowers the tribute paid to him by the hon. Member—one that I absolutely share. I have myself seen Sir Brian to thank him very much for the work that has been done. As for the form of parliamentary debate that should take place, there is a Select Committee, there will be opportunities for this to be discussed, and, without speaking for the Leader of the House, who is responsible for Government business, I should think it inconceivable that a decision of this magnitude could be taken without the House having an opportunity to express its view. I shall certainly convey that view to my right hon. Friend, but I must not be taken to be announcing future Government business.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on coal stocks.

Due to the fall in demand for energy, coal stocks are high, but they are not excessive. The Government are assisting the National Coal Board by providing stocking aid this year. The level of stocks in South Wales poses a particular problem, which is being examined.

Is the Minister aware of the adverse effect that large coal stocks are having on productivity in our mines, especially compared with other countries? Will he adopt two measures to try to deal with this long-term problem? First, will he ensure the provision of better and longer-lasting equipment for the extraction of coal, and, second, will he bring into effect a steady reduction in the retirement age of miners from the present unacceptable level?

With all respect, that matter is raised by another Question. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to deal with these matters.

What action is being taken to reduce and, if possible, eliminate imports of coal and to encourage the export of coal so as to reduce these stocks?

We are certainly anxious to get back into the coal exporting business. This matter was discussed at the Council of Energy Ministers meeting last week. I would not exaggerate the amount of our coal stocks. After all, we may face a tough winter, with stocks run down substantially. As for importing coal, there are certain inhibitions on us, inasmuch as long-term contracts have been signed which must be honoured, but we are keeping the matter under close review.

Since the previous Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)—told me in an official letter only three months ago that the Government were in no way committed, either in principle or in detail, to the Vale of Belvoir coal mine, will the Minister withdraw the suggestion that he made earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that the Government are in some way committed to this project?

I cannot withdraw the answer that I gave, because what my hon. Friend said and what I said is true. As to the desirability of mining in that area, that is a matter for planning, for the Department of the Environment in the first instance, and for a public hearing. But if the decision is that we shall go ahead with this, subject to certain safeguards, it will be a welcome addition to our resources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty with the electricity supply industry is that there is not enough load and there is too much coal? Would not matters be helped if the Department gave some attention to a rational pricing policy for all energy resources?

Certainly, most of our coal is electricity coal and not suitable for burning in domestic fires or boilers. Therefore, the suggestion that we should sell the coal to old-age pensioners at reduced prices and similar suggestions are not realistic. However, my hon. Friend makes a fundamental point, which we shall consider.

rose—

Mr. Mayhew—I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

No matter, Mr. Speaker—"a rose by any other name". Does the Minister agree that the large stocks of coal have a depressing effect on those working in the industry? He said just now that he hoped that we would get back into the export business. Does he realise that that will be not at all well received by those in the industry who hope that if there is any silver lining from the fall in the value of our currency it is that our goods will be cheaper abroad? Is not the export position of Britsh coal depressing in the extreme, since the whole market seems to have evaporated? Will someone get off his bottom and go out and sell British coal now, when its price advantage has never been better?

I am not certain about the hon. Gentleman's being a rose, but there were certainly many thorns in that question. I do not accept his depressing view of the industry. The subject of productivity will come up on a later Question. It is important for the industry to get back into exporting. Our European partners hope that we can contribute in that area, and I am certain that the National Union of Mineworkers wants to see us back as we used to be—one of the best exporters in the world.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he has now received the report of the Fay Committee dealing with the Crown Agents; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. I expect the committee to report in the first part of next year.

In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend indicate, by publishing information in the Official Report, the extent to which the Crown Agents in recent times have broken the law by failing to pay the dollar premium on certain transactions? Does it not follow that the taxpayer, who is largely footing the bill for the Crown Agents now as a result of those transactions, has to find an extra £3½ million? Why is it found necessary for the Crown Agents to have a subsidiary bank in the tax haven of the Bahamas?

None of those questions arises from the original Question. If my hon. Friend wants to ask me questions about those matters, he can do so. I do not understand why he keeps putting down these Questions, with supplementaries that become increasingly offensive and increasingly irrelevant.

Does not my right hon. Friend recall that when some misgivings were expressed in this House over the activities of the Crown Agents, one of the causes of concern was the manner in which and the authorisation by which the former Crown Agents expanded from their well-proven traditional role? Will he assure us that the Fay Report will deal with the authorisations that were or were not, supposedly, given at that time? If not, will he ask for further investigations to be pursued?

My hon. Friend is fan-to refer to the disquiet that was felt in the House about the activities of the Crown Agents. That is why the Fay Committee was appointed by my predecessor. Its report will be published in due course. In the meantime, I am glad that my hon. Friend drew a distinction between the undesirable investments of the Crown Agents and their traditional activities. Their traditional activities have continued. They showed a profit last year, and they are of great benefit to this country and to developing countries throughout the world.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he will offer development aid towards assisting Arab refugees in the Gaza Strip.

I think that we can best assist in this field through the substantial contributions we already provide to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Britain expects to contribute some £3·75 million directly to the agency in 1976 and we also bear our share of the European Community contribution to it.

Since that refugee problem has existed for almost one-third of the century, and since thousands of people are living in absolute squalor in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, will my hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to do all in his power to assist in rehabilitation programmes to try to rehouse these refugees and their families?

We deeply appreciate the reasons for my hon. Friend's anxiety. The British Government are the second largest cumulative contributor to the agency after the United States, with the basic contributions that I have just outlined.

What contributions are being made by the oil-rich Arab countries to helping Arab refugees?

UNRWA is an international institution, which draws its support from the world community as a whole.

Is it not a scandal that the oil-rich countries should not make a real contribution towards helping the Arab refugees? If the Government are making any representations, is it not time that they made them to those who are very rich indeed, and asked them to help the poor people of their own nationality?

I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his concern about this matter, will agree that the lead given by the Government on this issue is one of which the whole international community should take note.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what discussions he has held with the appropriate Minister of the West German Government concerning the fifth replenishment of the IDA.

I have not recently had a meeting with my West German colleague, but I expect to see him later this week at a meeting of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. My officials have naturally had bilateral discussions with their colleagues from other countries, including West Germany, in preparation for or during the various international meetings which have been held on this important subject.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd that a country with reserves of $35 billion should be haggling and niggling over a contribution to this important agency? Will he use all his influence with both the Germans and the Japanese to make sure that these international bodies, which are of vital importance to the world economy, and not only ours, are replenished on a sufficient scale?

I agree very much about the importance of the replenishment of the IDA. My hon. Friend will be glad to note that at a meeting held in Japan on 12th and 13th October a considerable amount of progress was made. Among other Governments, the German Government said that they expected to be able to play their part in a replenishment which would be something between $7 billion and $7½ billion from the traditional IDA donors. In addition to that, we would hope to receive new contributions from the oil exporting countries.

Would not the British point of view carry more weight in these discussions, and would we not be able to exercise more influence, were it not for the fact that the British Government have been almost the most frequent arrival at the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions for grants-in-aid or loans of one kind or another? Would it not be sensible if we exercised our minds on the matter before trying to back up the points of view put forward by Labour Members?

That matter goes a little wider than the original Question, but I agree that our influence in world affairs will be stronger as and when our economy becomes stronger. It behoves hon. Members on both sides of the House to make a constructive contribution towards the solution of that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has plans to publish further material to allow public debate to take place on the building of further nuclear plants in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish and encourage public debate on the dangers to the public that might be incurred if the United Kingdom builds a commercial scale nuclear fast reactor.

I welcome public debate and shall continue to keep the public fully informed about factors bearing on nuclear decisions. In this connection, I have just pubished some questions bearing on the safety of the fast reactor, which I am putting to the Nuclear Inspectorate and other bodies concerned, and I shall in due course publish the answers that I receive.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that what we need will be objective information on a variety of matters and not the bland unsubstantiated assurances that have been criticised by the Royal Commission? Cannot he set an example in the short term in the way in which he deals with the reprocessing plant question arising at Windscale, by providing adequate information on long-term problems which might affect the work force and the problem of pollution in the Irish Sea? There are serious problems on both aspects of our nuclear policy on which we need information.

I entirely agree that people are entitled to have clear answers to the questions that are put. On the other hand, if there are uncertainties, as there are, people should know exactly what is the nature of those uncertainties before a decision is taken. The Windscale question is a separate matter, and there is another Question on the Order Paper about that.

Has my right hon. Friend received the same representations as I have from the Transport and General Workers' Union at Caithness to the effect that there should be a demonstration of the commercial fast breeder reactor sited at Caithness and built by a consortium of the Central Electricity Generating Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? Will he give considerato these views?

I have had representations of all kinds, including those to which my hon. Friend refers. At Dounreay there is a 250MW fast reactor now on stream. The decision that we have to take is whether to go ahead with the CFR—the commercial fast breeder reactor—and it is on this that there must be time for public discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current level of productivity in the coal industry.

The level of productivity has been disappointing. This is fully recognised by both sides of the industry. The National Coal Board and the mining unions are setting up a joint team to investigate the problem, and to recommend positive measures to improve productivity.

Can the Minister throw any further light on criticisms that have been made of the mechanical equipment that is now working underground? During my own visit to the South Wales coalfield during the recess, while I was watching a plough I saw it break down four times. There is now concern that this matter could be holding up productivity. Secondly, can the Minister give any idea of how one can motivate the miner, upon whom this industry depends, at a time of price and pay restraint?

I am not certain about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary question. However, I shall certainly look into the matter and see whether we can get any information on that. I am told, however, that productivity is influenced to some extent by the increasing number of miners who are employed on development work. I am not hiding from the House the fact that the level of stocks may to some extent be acting as a disincentive to production. The productivity target for 1976–77 was 46·5 cwt per man-shift. In fact, that was reached in February, but productivity has slumped back since then.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the productivity rate in the United Kingdom mining industry is, on the whole, very much higher than the rates of our competitors in the Common Market? Does he also accept—[Interruption.]

Order.

I thought that it was about time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw."] Ask me to withdraw in a minute.

My hon. Friend and I at least share the distinction of having actually worked hi a coal mine. Those who have had to work in small seams realise how difficult it is to win coal. Post-war pits in, for example, Yorkshire and the Midlands area achieved outputs per man-shift of 70 cwt. I think that our miners, given the same chances in the same pits and with the same machinery, would be able to produce just as much as anyone else.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that increased productivity would help consumers, through the level of prices, would help British exports, and is the clue to higher earnings in the industry? After confirming that, will he state what was the level of productivity this year, last year and the year before that?

I confirm the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, but what I said was that the target was to be 46·5 cwt. per man-shift. In fact, the figure reached in February was 46·3 cwt. The figure is now, I regret to say, 42·4 cwt. for the 27 weeks ended 2nd October.