asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans his Department has for increasing the national effort in the fields of alternative and benign sources of energy.

The House has already been informed, in Answers to Questions on 29th April and 22nd July, of the programmes for wave power and geothermal energy, and work under these is now proceeding. I hope to be able to announce our plans for solar energy soon.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he accept that it still shows a lack of urgency on the part of the Department and the Government as a whole regarding these alternative sources? Will he consider stepping up investment in research and development of these sources, as I believe that they will not only be valuable in themselves but will offer great export potential in countries which are more blessed with sunshine than ourselves?

Taking the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first, it is true that these resources will be extremely valuable. Incidentally, the EEC views coincide with the general views and policy of the United Kingdom on these resources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whilst it is necessary to continue to develop and invest in so-called alternative and benign sources of energy, at least until the end of the century we shall still be dependent on oil-based fuel plus nuclear power and that, in view of the need to conserve Britain's and the world's oil and the environmental factors surrounding the use of nuclear power, far greater emphasis must be placed on the existing coalfields in this country, together with the need to exploit newly discovered coalfields as a matter of urgency?

I could not agree more. We have 300 years' supply of coal in this country. Any country which has such resources will naturally want to exploit them in the interests of the community as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the future organisation of the electrical supply industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce his proposals to restructure the electricity industry.

Discussions are still in progress and I will make a statement when these are completed.

Will the Secretary of State get some sense of urgency into this matter? It has been hanging fire for some time, and this is having a harmful effect on the staff and their future in the industry.

I am anxious to get it right as well as to do it in due time. I appreciate the anxiety in the industry. The discussions to which I referred in my answer have been taking place with both management and unions. I think that the hon. Lady knows that I had some anxieties about the over-centralisation which I detected in the Plowden Report, and was anxious to see the industry not too far disconnected from its customers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the main recommendation of the Plowden Committee that the CEGB and the Electricity Council should be merged? If so, when will he introduce legislation to implement that recommendation?

As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, legislation will be needed. I cannot give a timetable for that legislation. I have fully taken on board the need to co-ordinate the investment programmes and planning of the supply boards with the CEGB. That does not mean that it is absolutely inevitable that changes as radical as those proposed by Plowden should be carried through. That is what we are discussing now.

When does my right hon. Friend hope to publish a White Paper on the matter—a suggestion which I have put to him on a number of occasions?

I have considered that matter. My hon. Friend's knowledge and interest is well appreciated, but I hope that he will allow me to consider later whether a White Paper is necessary or whether a statement commenting on the Plowden recommendations is sufficient. Once a statement of principles, backed by future legislation, is made, I would hope that some transitional arrangements would bring about some of the benefits even in the interim.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in preparing for this subject I have been studying some of his previous answers and have found that he gave the same answer to this Question on 19th July, when he had had the Plowden Report for some months? Is it not clear that a decision on this matter is already holding up further appointments to the board concerned and causing some problems? Is it not a matter of urgency to resolve the matter now?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his translation to this subject. I am glad that the first result of his studies has been to detect consistency in my answers. If he proceeds on that basis, he will not go far wrong. The cuttings that the hon. Gentleman may have seen were probably those relating to the delay in making appointments. The appointments to replace Sir Peter Menzies and Sir Arthur Hawkins have already been made. There is no question of a hold-up.

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

I have nothing to add to the answer that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 25th October.

I should like to express our sincere sympathy to the family of the miner who was killed at the Darfield Main colliery this morning. We wish the injured a speedy recovery.

The whole House will endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the fatality that took place in the mining industry this morning. What he said about the technological equipment in relation to productivity is not entirely true. There are many factors, including geological factors, which are related to the question of techonological equipment. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is concern about output per man shift. I am pleased to say that last week productivity seemed to be increasing. The output was over 45 cwt per man shift.

To what extent does the Minister think that coal production. accidents and fatalities within the industry would be reduced if the retirement age of the British miner were reduced in line with that of his Common Market counterparts?

That is an interesting question, and I would love to answer it. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on the Order Paper I shall take delight in answering it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that enough of the equipment required to exploit North Sea oil is being manufactured by United Kingdom firms and actually made in factories in the United Kingdom.

The Government's aim is that United Kingdom firms should supply, on a competitive basis, an increasing proportion of the domestic offshore market. We have made good progress so far. In 1975 United Kingdom firms won orders worth £613 million or 52 per cent. of the market. The figures in 1974 were £516 million and 40 per cent. of the market. In capital goods the percentage was 63 per cent. in 1975 compared with 47 per cent. in 1974. The indications are that this progress will be maintained this year.

Is the Minister satisfied that orders obtained by United Kingdom divisions of multinational companies are carried out by workers in the United Kingdom—or are they actually carried out by workers in other countries, therefore making the figures better than they really are?

The Offshore Supplies Office audit engineers keep the United Kingdom content of orders under constant review. Under the precise terms of the memorandum of understanding and code of practice which we agreed with the United Kingdom Overseas Operators' Association last year, and which ensures that the United Kingdom has a fair opportunity to compete, we are able to examine bid summaries and all relevant documents involved in the major contracts.

Could not those figures be greatly improved if the present Government's policies towards the industry were changed? There are a number of firms which could diversify to take advantage of the opportunities offered if Government incentives were made more attractive.

That is too general a question to answer properly. We want firms to diversify and we have encouraged them to do so. I am not sure in what way we are defective in not helping them.

Why cannot the Scottish Offshore Supplies Office produce similar figures? Is it that it dare not supply the figures because it has failed to give preference to Scottish firms?

That is not so. The bulk of work is done in Scotland. It would cost a lot of money to go through all the contracts in order to supply the figures, and Parliament is strict about trying to answer questions that are pointless.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the allocation of fifth-round offshore exploration and production licences in the North Sea.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on the recent round of offshore licensing and proposals for the granting of further licences.

My right hon. Friend is examining the 53 applications received, and will make an announcement when decisions are made on the award of licences.

Does the Minister agree that it is essential that British operating companies get a fair share of these licences? Does he also agree that it must be a case not just of preferential treatment for the State-owned British giant companies but of fair treatment for the smaller British exploration companies, without whose participation in the next round there would be a great loss of British expertise in offshore drilling and exploration work?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". On the second part, we have laid down definite criteria which have been published and which were the subject of applications which came in on 5th October. I hope that many of the smaller companies will participate. It depends on which blocks they have asked for and in what circumstances. It is complicated.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when considering British companies he should also consider the British National Oil Corporation? Does he think that BNOC should just have not a minimum 51 per cent. shareholding but, where appropriate, a 100 per cent. shareholding, so that any benefit of this development can be returned to the people?

In each application that is agreed BNOC will have a 51 per cent. share and the option of exploring and/or developing as a 51 per cent. partner of the successful applicant. BNOC has taken on board substantial commitments on participation—which we are literally signing today and tomorrow and in the next few weeks—with large companies and consortia. BNOC has a formidable programme in building up expertise. Considering that it was set up only 11 months ago it is doing a remarkable job. It has control of some of the blocks inherited from previous participation agreements.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view of the Daily Record poll, which showed that a substantial majority of Scottish people are eager to retain Scottish oil revenues? Should not arrangements be made for an orderly transfer of production licences and revenues in due course?

I did not catch the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question nor do I want to. Having been a contributor to the Daily Record in its most successful period of expansion in Scotland in nine years. I would say that licences should probably go to the Daily Record.

Will my hon. Friend ignore the Scottish National Party, which is using the same script that we have heard for the last two years since Members of that party came to the House? In view of the report by Professor Odell, will he indicate that in future we shall get the greatest advantage from allocation and that it should go to those companies that perhaps make less profit but benefit the country more?

My hon. Friend must accept from me that I have a great regard for Professor Odell. Many of his criticisms in the past have been not ill-formed, as some have said, but quite sensible. His book is a very important one, which cannot be commented upon off the cuff. Therefore, we are taking the matter very seriously. We are inquiring, quite rightly—I hope that hon. Members will do likewise—into the remarkable assertions that he makes with regard to the exploitation of fields, the number of jobs involved, and the amount of oil that may be lost.

Is the Minister totally satisfied that the progressive nationalisation policies of his Government have not totally deterred foreign investment in North Sea exploration?

That is patently absurd. First, 133 companies have been involved in the applications in a very small round of North Sea licensing as compared with the previous round. That shows interest. Secondly, there is no such evidence from the financial centres. I have been involved with my right hon. Friend in discussing these matters with financiers who are concerned in the raising of money for the North Sea. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, people are anxious to invest.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the National Coal Board on the subject of earlier retirement for miners and its effect on production.

I have discussed the question of earlier retirement for mine workers with the Chairman of the National Coal Board and many others in the industry over a long period.

In the course of his discussions will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that nearly all modern industrial countries allow their miners to retire at the age of 60, 55 or 50, and that Britain is the sole disagreeable exception to that rule? Will he also bear in mind that health considerations are involved, as well as economic advantages to the miners? Finally, would it not be possible to make some firm arrangement now to lower the miners' retirement age as soon as the Government's wages policy allows that to be implemented?

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to some of the factors that influence the National Union of Mineworkers very strongly. The House should be in no doubt about the feeling of the NUM about the age of retirement. The parallels that my hon. Friend cites, from Germany, Belgium and France, are correct, and there are health factors that bear upon this question. I am quite confident that a solution will be found, but the "how" and "when" of it have been the subject of discussions. I am sure that in the end we shall meet with success.

Is it not striking that about 22 per cent. of face workers are aged 55 and over? Has the Secretary of State had a proper analysis carried out for him showing where the incidence of those miners falls, and whether they make up a large proportion, for example, in some of the older mines? Surely what the House needs is a much closer examination of the whole question. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make such an examination and to make the results available in the Library?

The age structure is one of the problems, and it stems from the very big closure programme that took place earlier. The geographical spread of older miners among various types of pit is another factor that has had to be taken into account. I have at my disposal a lot of information about this. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall see whether any of this has not been published and should be published, and, if so, I shall be very ready to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that every day, every week, every month and every year the average age of miners in Britain becomes higher and higher, and that the industry is not bringing in people who are able to use the sophisticated machinery in which the industry has invested? It is time that the Government decided to support the miners' demand for earlier retirement in order to give an inducement to younger people to go into the industry fully to exploit the capital investment of the industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. In the discussions that have taken place between the NUM, the NCB, colliery managers, the NACODS and myself, we have tried to relate the problem of earlier retirement to the future expansion and development of the mining industry under the tripartite "Plan for Coal", first agreed in 1974 and now just about to be up-dated, and all these factors will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what response there has been to the announcement of Government assistance to the less-well-off in meeting their fuel bills during the winter months.

My right hon. Friend's announcement on 2nd August of the Government's intention to pay 25 per cent. of one electricity bill for the coming winter quarter for certain low-income consumers generated considerable interest and pressure for further information. He therefore made a further statement on 17th November. The response of those eligible for help under the scheme cannot be judged until it starts in February.

I do not dispute the need to give some assistance to lower-income families. However, would it not be better for this £25 million to be used in energy-saving measures in the future, such as insulation and the provision of the right sorts of heating systems, rather than as a measure that will subsidise energy consumption?

The money that has been allocated under this heading has not detracted in any way from expenditure on the conservation programme, in any of its aspects. As for the money allocated for this purpose, it is the Government's intention to help those consumers who are likely to face most difficulties with their electricity bills in the heaviest quarter of the winter. This will not really encourage people to use more electricity—quite the contrary. It is based on people who are in receipt of supplementary benefit and family income supplement, and they are hardly likely to be profligate in their use of electricity.

What steps have been taken to publicise this scheme, including television publicity? How much is being spent on publicising the scheme?

My hon. Friend will realise that the final details of the scheme have not yet been published. They will be made public shortly after Christmas. The scheme will take effect from 1st February to 30th April. We shall ensure that all those who may be eligible will be in possession of details in good time to take up the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the fast-breeder reactor.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) on 25th October.

Before the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind on the future programme for the fast-breeder reactor, will he take into account the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the fact that Sir Brian Flowers, its Chairman, is a distinguished nuclear physicist? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Leader of the House that this is a matter which should be put to a Select Committee, possibly the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in view of the very serious considerations that have been put forward by Sir Brian and his colleagues about the rightness of going ahead with an energy supply that depends on plutonium?

Concerning the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is "Yes, Sir". The Royal Commission's report will feature very much in Government discussions. Concerning the second part of the question, it is not for Ministers to suggest what the Select Committee should look at. It is for the Select Committee to decide and then, in the light of that, for the House to find time to debate such recommendations as may be made.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is perhaps a little illogical to give the go-ahead to the oxide fuel reprocessing plant at Windscale before any policy decision on the FBR has been arrived at?

My hon. Friend may be mistaking two separate issues. The need for reprocessing arises from the decision taken in 1966 to go for the Magnox station and is not solely linked to overseas contracts—indeed, not primarily so. The Windscale issue was the subject of a statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has asked for more time to consider the planning procedures.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a Parliamentary Question is hardly a suitable vehicle for the Government to outline their policy on such an important matter? Will he liaise with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange a full day's debate on this important subject so that the Government can outline their policy?

I should greatly welcome a whole day's debate. I think that most Ministers would welcome the opportunity to debate their problems with the House of Commons. It is not for me to decide, but I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received from members of the public in the current year about nuclear energy problems.

My right hon. Friend and I have received 658 letters and 12 petitions from members of the public.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is some evidence of the growing public anxiety about these matters, and especially about nuclear waste? As this is bound more and more to affect public attitudes to the whole nuclear programme, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to lend his weight to the demand for a public inquiry into the Windscale proposals?

I think that I should identify the letters, because by doing so it may help to get rid of some of the confusion that may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The following is the breakdown of the letters: on safety and security there were 391 letters and six petitions; on nuclear fuel supplies there were 10 letters; on international aspects of nuclear power there were eight letters; on reactor policy there were 231 letters and six petitions; on the place of nuclear power in energy policy there were 14 letters; on the economics of nuclear electricity generation there were three letters.

Surely the hon. Gentleman has received messages from, among others, trade unions on whether the right nuclear policy is being pursued, and is it not time that we got on with the American licences so that we can get ahead in the export market, which we cannot do with the SGHWR?

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but, in answer to his first question I can tell him that I recently visited Windscale, met the trade unions, and listened to their point of view. That has been widely reported in the Press. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to recollect some of the publicity that has been given to this matter. The fact is that the trade unions and the people that work there are in favour of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the CEGB.

My right hon. Friend has frequent meetings with the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to ensure that the next time he meets the Chairman of the CEGB there is a full discussion on the plight of the boiler industry and the construction industry, which has come about as a result of the drop in electricity consumption and a reduction in the need for power stations? Will my hon. Friend try to persuade the CEGB to advance its programme for conventional power stations, and will he make it clear that the Government are prepared to provide money to ensure that that can be done?

I am seized of the points made by my hon. Friend, and I can tell him that at the last meeting there were discussions on the matter to which he refers. On the question of power station ordering, my hon. Friend will be aware that the CPRS has reported on this matter. My right hon. Friend has met many representatives of the trade unions, and this question of power station ordering has been put to him forcefully.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the statement by the Chairman of the CEGB about the likely effect of further immediate increases in the price of coal on the price of electricity and the demand for it and, therefore, on the market for coal?

No, Sir. I have no comment to make on the statement by the Chairman of the CEGB about this. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of coal supplies and the cost of energy has concerned the House for some time. The Government believe that a coal policy is in the interests of the country and that coal should be produced as cheaply and economically as possible commensurate with ensuring that miners enjoy conditions similar to those in other heavy industries.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Chairman of the CEGB, Sir Arthur Hawkins, has a reputation for making outspoken statements. Are these statements, for good or ill, welcome in the Department?

Candour is always appreciated in the matter of energy policy. As for the statement by Sir Arthur Hawkins, he is the man who is making the statements and he must be responsible for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the projected Vale of Belvoir coal development.

I have nothing further to add to what I said in the House on 15th November.

Surely the Minister is aware of the environmental considerations here. These have been experienced in Selby. Will the Minister assure the House that a similar inquiry will be held in due course, after the submission of the planning applications, so that environmentalists and others are able to put forward arguments, together with those who are anxious to extract the coal, so that justice may be done?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the statement that I made to the House on 15th November. In that speech I referred to some of the points that he has raised. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that planning considerations are a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment and not the Department of Energy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should all regret that this issue is fast becoming a party political one? Does he further agree that when a decision is taken to exploit a new coalfield that decision should be taken in the context of the country's overall energy requirements, based upon a national energy plan, rather than on the basis of a narrow constituency point of view, important though that may be?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend when he talks about decisions on energy matters being taken in the interests of the country. It is well known that no country can hope to be an industrial one unless it has adequate and safe supplies of energy. We are very fortunate in this country in having 300 years of coal, and I think that the nation would indict us if we, as the House of Commons, did not take advantage of these valuable energy resources.

As the newspapers yesterday suggested that the National Coal Board's existing plans are hopelessly overspent and there will be far higher estimates than originally considered, will the hon. Gentleman inform the House in the near future, first, what the Vale of Belvoir project will cost and, secondly, who will pay for it?

No plan has been submitted on costs. One cannot comment on a plan that does not exist, or on costs that do not exist. On the question of cost, I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the "Plan for Coal". If so, I suggest that he awaits the report that my right hon. Friend intends to publish.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has concerning the disconnection of fuel supplies to domestic consumers; and if he will make a statement.

A copy of a draft code of practice was placed in the House of Commons Library, as mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on 22nd November. I expect a code to be put into effect by the gas and electricity industries when the current discussions have been concluded, which I hope will be very soon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I appreciate his personal efforts to deal with this problem but that the code of practice is grossly inadequate and that the Secretary of State should now forbid the disconnection of three categories: first, old people; secondly, severely disabled people; thirdly, low-paid workers with children? If action is not taken on those lines thousands of people may suffer during the coming winter because of the disconnection of supplies. They may suffer from hypothermia.

My hon. Friend will recognise that much work involving the gas industry, the Electricity Council, the area boards, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, the Department of Health and Social Security, the unions in the industries and the Department of Energy has gone into the preparation of this code, and we cannot accept his statement that it is inadequate.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there has been an appalling lack of progress on this important matter? The Minister's predecessor, again on 19th July, said that this was a matter of urgency and that the decision would have to be taken before the autumn and winter months. Just what part of the season is 29th November meant to be?

The draft code is in the House of Commons Library. As I said, a great many interests have been involved in the preparation of this document. We are hoping that very soon now it will be agreed and implemented. Above all else it is important to make sure, first, that the code is a practical document and is acceptable to those who have to operate it and, secondly, that as much protection as possible is built into it for those we are trying to help. The suggestion from the Conservative Opposition that this is something which should be done quickly or lightly is one that I reject.

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

The development of a Community energy policy has been slow, but the general discussion in the Energy Council of 19th October gives grounds for hoping that progress may be made in a number of fields at the next Energy Council.

Does that mean that at the moment there is not a coherent energy policy to deal with the crisis which, according to the Commission, may arise in 1985? On the more imminent question of the possible price increase, is Community policy geared towards that and to what extent is it influenced by the German disagreement over the Paris North-South Conference which is going on at the moment?

Progress has been slow. There are a number of reasons, but the one which may have been a major factor is that one has to build an energy policy on a building block basis—by taking account of the interests of those who are concerned—just as an energy policy at home has to be built upon the interests concerned. During the period of the presidency which begins in January I am hoping that we shall be able to play a constructive rôlewith perhaps rather greater openness than there has been before.

What restrictions does the Common Market energy policy place on the Government's direction of oil-related contracts to Scottish and United Kingdom firms?

The House will know, as will the hon. Gentleman, that we do not direct contracts. We aim to have a full and fair system, under which British firms have the opportunity to compete on equal terms. Some questions have been raised about this, but the policies are non-discriminatory. As was said in answer to an earlier question, we have secured a much bigger share of the market in the United Kingdom. Most of the firms in Scotland, and, indeed, in other Community countries, have similarly increased their share, largely at the expense of suppliers from elsewhere.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the Ministers in the Common Market that the events which have occurred since the referendum have confirmed what he said about our entry being a disaster? Will my right hon. Friend tell them that so impoverished are we as a nation, as a result of our being inside the Common Market, and because we currently have an incomes policy—which is also a disister—that British miners cannot be retired, because they must have 25 years' service underground? Compared with the West Germans, the Belgians, the French and even the Spanish we are at the bottom of this retirement league.

My hon. Friend was in the House earlier when, in answering a question, I drew attention to the fact that retirement for miners is possible down to the age of 50 in some countries, with 25 or 20 years' underground service. This is a factor which lies behind the miners' demand for an early retirement scheme in this country. In respect of the Community energy policy, many countries in the Community appreciate that, whatever our short-term economic difficulties may be, we are the largest supplier of energy in the Comunity and there will be—

They are not miners.

In the case of coal, cheap Polish and South African coal imports are coming in.

What are you doing?

I am raising this matter in order to secure a market. I have discussed it with the Polish Minister and with the National Coal Board, and I raised it at the last Energy Council, on 16th October. All this depends on our being able to get, and make more progress on, policy.

It is all waffle.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what contribution he is making in 1976–77 to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees programme to assist refugees from Indo-China now in Thailand.

Her Majesty's Government contribute annually to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees Regular Programme. These contributions have been regularly increased in recent years and a contribution of £350,000 has been pledged for 1977. Part of this programme covers activities in this region. In addition, we have provided £2 million for various relief activities in Indo-China in 1974 and 1975. Against this background we have not so far responded to the special programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have the situation under active review.

Is that not a disgraceful reply? Why are we giving £2 million of aid to the Communist Governments of Indo-China while offering nothing to the refugees? Surely the aid given by this country should go to the victims and not to the oppressors.

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the reply he would have heard me say that we are contributing quite substantially to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees general fund, part of which is used in this area. We will also be spending £700,000 in Thailand on technical assistance programmes. Since 1971, £2½ million in capital aid has been pledged to Thailand.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many refugees from the earthquake damage in Turkey and that the Government's response has been absolutely scandalous? Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Thousands of people are dying there, and they urgently need blood supplies, lorries, and so on. The Government have sent fewer than 6,000 blankets, a few hundred tents, and that is about all. Is it not time that the Secretary of State went to Turkey to look at the problem, as the former American Ambassador is doing, and did something about it?

Naturally, I deeply appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but I am afraid that he is misinformed. Already plane-loads of relief supplies have gone. We have provided all that we have been asked to provide, and we are willing to provide more. It is important, in a difficult situation of this kind, to make sure that the contribution we are making is part of the integrated international response. We are providing blood, tents and blankets, and we are sending those parts of the programme that we have been requested to send. I emphasise again that we are willing to send anything more that we are requested to send.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the aid promised to the Communist Governments in Indo-China has been paid to them?

The position is as I have stated it. If the hon. Gentleman would like details of the programme, I can give them to him. For example, we gave to the Joint United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF emergency appeal, £250,000; to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appeal for refugees outside Indo-China, £150,000; to the Secretary-General's appeal for food aid to Laos, £100,000; to the UNICEF appeal for Indo-China, £1 million; to the International Red Cross appeal for Indo-China, £250,000; to the Disasters Emergency Committee, £250,000. I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will feel that that is a responsible use of the funds involved.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development to what extent the value of the United Kingdom overseas aid programme has been reduced: (a) in percentage terms and (b) in cash value, by the decline in the exchange rate of the £ sterling since January 1976.

The greater part of the overseas aid programme is disbursed in payment for British goods and services which are not affected directly by fluctuations in exchange rates. About 24 per cent. of our total aid is disbursed through multilateral agencies, and it is estimated that about £90 million of this would be subject to maintenance of value payments in 1976–77, but it is not possible to deduce from this that the value of the aid programme is reduced, because our system has a built-in adjustment for price changes year by year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that information will be very welcome but that in its latest annual report the IMF has put on record the enormous importance of continuing the massive flow of aid from the rich to the poor countries? Will the Government bear that in mind during the current negotiations?

Yes, Sir. I think that the Government gave evidence of the priority which they attach to the aid programme in July when, although cuts in public expenditure totalling £1 billion were made, we did not cut the overseas aid programme. These points are therefore very much in the Government's mind.

Does not the Minister's original reply underline the importance of multilateral aid, whereby British effort can be combined with aid from countries with stronger currencies? Would he confirm that the present balance between bilateral and multilateral aid of our own effort is still unsatisfactory at 2 to 1 in favour of bilateral aid?

The proportion of our programme going through multilateral channels has been steadily increasing over recent years. The Government's view is that it should continue to increase, but this must obviously depend on the ability of the multilateral agencies to handle the extra funds. It would be wrong to make too quick a transfer if it were at the cost of effective use of the aid funds.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what estimate he has made of the effect on the need for aid in those countries assisted by Her Majesty's Government's aid programme of the proposed increase in world oil prices.

This is of course at this stage a hypothetical question, but any increase would undoubtedly have a grave effect on the balance of payments and development prospects of oil-importing developing countries.

Will the hon. Gentleman make the strongest representations to the Governments of OPEC that any sharp increase in oil prices will hit the poorer countries the hardest, both by increasing their energy costs and, of course, by deepening the world recession? Will he point out to OPEC leaders that they have suffered only a 2·7 per cent. increase in the cost of manufactured imports and that, therefore, a larger increase in oil prices would not be justified?

Bearing in mind how very badly some of the poorest developing countries were hit on the last occasion, we shall certainly make that point at every possible opportunity—looking at it also, of course, in the context of the adverse effect on the world economy as a whole.

Is it not a fact that the quadrupling of oil prices after the Yom Kippur war not only hurt the developing countries, particularly the poorest, much more than the advanced industrial countries, but actually widened the gap between the developing countries and the advanced industrial countries? Is that not in conflict with the Government's own aid strategy, which is designed to help the poorest of the developing countries? If that be the case, are there not any specific initiatives that the Government are prepared to take in order to advance the ideas behind the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are deeply concerned about the impact of increases in the prices of basic commodities generally on developing countries, particularly the poorest developing countries. Our strategy on every international occasion—including, for example, UNCTAD earlier this year —is to bring home the reality of this situation and to seek an appropriate international response which will take into account the needs of the poorest.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement concerning EEC aid to former Commonwealth countries not eligible for associate status.

I am glad to say that since my reply to my hon. Friend on 16th November agreement has been reached upon a resolution on the harmonisation and co-ordination of member States' development co-operation policies. The 20 million units of account entered in the 1976 budget will therefore now be committed to development projects in several non-associated countries, including some Commonwealth countries and Pakistan, which is a former Commonwealth country. Countries not eligible for associate status have also benefited widely from Community food aid, and I expect that this will continue.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that expansion of the Written Answer that he gave on 16th November. However, does he not think that 20 million units of account out of the original 100 million units of account per year and the total of 730 million allocated is very small and a price to pay for the harmonisation of our own development aid policy? Has the agreement on harmonisation meant any change in the Government's policy or in that of the Commonwealth Development Corporation?

The answer to the second part of that question is "No, Sir". There is to be a study of harmonisation, and I have constantly made it clear that in no way would Her Majesty's Government accept an idea of harmonisation which meant scaling down the standards or quality of our programme.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development when he now expects the Fay Committee on the Crown Agents to complete its report; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 25th October, when I said that I expected the committee to report in the first part of next year.

Before that report is given to the House, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Crown Agents, as one of the creditors of the Stern property empire, seemingly agreed to the proposal put forward by Kenneth Cork, of Cork, Gully & Co., that William Stern, the head of that property empire, should be allowed to escape bankruptcy and live on £20,000 a year? As one of the creditors, surely the Crown Agents, who are now being bailed out by the British taxpayer, should come clean on this matter and establish once and for all what their rôle was among the 31 other creditors at that vital meeting?

No, Sir; I do not agree with my hon. Friend at all. I repeat what I have said in previous exchanges on this matter—that the Crown Agents are doing a first-class job in their traditional rôle in which I believe they have the support of the whole House. In so far as there were unfortunate developments a year or two ago, those are being examined by the Fay Committee, and it would be wrong for me to prejudge the committee's findings.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement about the progress of the STABEX scheme under the Lomé Convention.

The aid and STABEX provisions of the Lomé Convention came into force on 1st April this year. On 8th July agreements covering financial transfers for 1975 were signed with the 17 ACP States which had made claims meeting the conditions laid down by the convention. Details of these payments were in a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 13th October.

Have the Government considered whether the STABEX scheme might provide a model which would be useful in a wider context—for example, the North-South Conference?

It is of course limited to Lomé initially. We are studying and monitoring it closely to see how it works. To extend it more widely would be a complex operation which would have to be undertaken in the appropriate international forums. But we shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what steps he intends to take to mitigate the impact upon poor students from underdeveloped countries of any increase in tuition fees for education courses in the United Kingdom in the next academic year.

I am introducing a new Fee Support Scheme to assist selected private postgraduate students from the poorer developing countries. Further details are in a Written Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) today.

One derives some encouragement from that reply. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the increase in fees must produce hardship over a much wider range than the category he has identified? Should not his Ministry look closely at the necessity for extra support for such students?

The wider question was discussed in the House last week, when the Secretary of State for Education and Science made her announcement. I should make it clear that those students who receive grants from ODM will of course have the increase in fees met entirely from the aid funds. We are trying here to help those in the greatest need, concentrating particularly on postgraduates because they have had to face the largest fees increase, and to do so within a total ceiling which will not put too great a burden on the aid programme but will, I hope, help those in the greatest need who entered into the commitment of these courses before this change of policy was announced.

Could priority be given to students from developing countries in the Commonwealth?

Priority will be given to students from the poorest developing countries, a large proportion of whom will be from the Commonwealth.