asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies are being made in his Department of the reliability of large power stations—1,000 to 1,300 MW—as compared with the older smaller units.

Reliability is the subject of continuing exchanges between my Department and the CEGB.

Would my hon. Friend agree that a move towards smaller units might reduce design and construction time, add greater flexibility to the programme of generating equipment, and possibly open the way for experimenting with combined heat and power units?

I am advised that, even taking into account the lower availability, it is still cheaper to generate electricity from sets of from 500 MW to 660 MW than from smaller units. The choice of sites which would be necessary if we were to revert to small units could lead to additional problems.

Surely it is necessary to strike a balance. Whilst accepting the economics of larger units, even in spite of breakdowns such as those we have in Yorkshire at Drax, is it not also necessary to use heat from power stations? What studies are being made to combine both virtues?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have informed the House of this before. A study group under the Department's Chief Scientist is currently analysing the technical and economic aspects of district heating supplied from combined heat and power plants. The results of the analysis are due to be published this month.

Are not the Minister's persistent answers on this subject complacent and disappointing? What is he doing to encourage the use of the fluidised bed combustion process, which is ideally suited for smaller units combining heat and power?

I have already given an answer about combined heat and power. I thought that that answer would elicit some expression of pleasure from the hon. Member. We have moneys under the International Energy Agency to have the fluidised bed combustion process prototype at Grimethorpe, which the whole of the energy industry welcomes.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next hopes to meet the Chairman of the UKAEA.

My Department is in regular contact with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and I meet the chairman as necessary from time to time.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he pay particular attention to his view that there is no realistic alternative to a strong nuclear programme in the future? With that in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise to the chairman the necessity of publicising at all times the outstanding safety record of the nuclear industry in this country so that this can do something to counter the hysterical attitude being adopted in certain quarters?

I dealt with this in the debate that took place 10 days ago. I paid tribute to the record of safety. I hope that the House will not think that all those who raise questions about nuclear safety are hysterical, because they are not. The Royal Commission has drawn attention to certain problems, and I would expect that both the chairman and the responsible Minister in the House would want to take a measured view on these matters.

Is the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority pressing my right hon. Friend for a decision on the commercial fast breeder reactor, as a decision was promised for last autumn?

There is a great deal of interest in the next decision on the fast breeder reactor. In view of the Royal Commission's report and its request for more time, it seems to be right that there should be time. Whatever the timing of the decision, there are many people who think that the construction of the fast breeder reactor will probably come later, by which time it is to be hoped that many of these questions will be resolved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the indecision and the argument between his Department and the Department of the Environment over the thermal oxide processing plant at Windscale, we stand a very real chance of losing a valuable Japanese contract? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to accelerate the correct policy?

There is no indecision. In March of last year, speaking as the Minister responsible for nuclear power, I made a statement. The planning inquiry procedure, which is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, is designed to safeguard the public interest. If we were to reach the point where the application of planning inquiries and the use of them for the purposes for which they were intended were to be described as indecision, that would be a very bad day.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has in front of him any proposals from the Atomic Energy Authority or the CEGB, or both organisations combined, for addi- tional atomic power stations? When he meets the chairman will he ask him, rather than to put new power stations on green field sites, to turn his attention to the extension of the life of existing power stations, which otherwise might become hulks of radioactivity indefinitely?

I do not know that I can answer the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I shall write to him about it. The main concern, which I share, is that the decision about the next generation or the next group of thermal power stations should be reached. In this respect, the Atomic Energy Authority last summer recommended that I should re-examine the case for the SGHWR, which was the decision taken in 1974. Any indecision that there may be, if that is the charge, arises from the fact that the AEA has asked the Government to look again at a decision already taken and already publicised.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the stocks of smokeless fuel held in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the stocks of smokeless fuel currently held in the United Kingdom.

Total stocks of solid smokeless fuels, including those for industrial uses but excluding those held by merchants, in the United Kingdom at 31st December 1976, the latest date for which figures are available, were approximately 3·7 million tons.

In the Government's view, are these figures adequate? If they are adequate, can the hon. Gentleman explain why my constituents cannot get any?

No, we do not regard them as adequate. There has been difficulty in respect of supplies. The National Coal Board hopes to have the new Betws Drift mine in production by April 1978, and when fully operational it will produce about half a million tons of anthracite per annum. In addition, the Board is seeking permission to open new opencast sites, one of which is estimated to contain about 700,000 tons of excellent quality anthracite that could be extracted over five years from the date of authorisation.

On 8th February the Under-Secretary told me in a Written Answer that there had been 26 explosions since last September involving imported anthracite. From which country, or countries, is the dangerous fuel coming? Will he confirm that the reason for the explosions is the presence in the cargoes of unexploded detonators made of aluminium or some other non-ferrous material that cannot be detected by normal means?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been communicating about this matter. I cannot give him the details of the countries but I shall write to him. We are considering this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the supply of anthracite there are manufactured smokeless fuels such as Phurnacite for which there is increasing demand? Will my hon. Friend have regular contact with the National Coal Board and ensure that regard is had to the people living in the areas where smokeless fuel is produced, as quite a deal of smoke is produced in producing smokeless fuel?

I shall convey my hon. Friend's comments to the NCB.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that smokeless fuels are apparently so poor that they either fall straight through the grate or put out the fire?

I am aware that there are many grades of smokeless fuels. As I understand it, some are in great demand by consumers.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he intends to take to enable the United Kingdom nuclear power plant industry to compete abroad.

Overseas business is an important factor that must be taken into account in decisions on nuclear policy.

Is not the best service that the Government could offer exporters the taking of a firm decision about the future nuclear reactor, a decision that surely should have been taken many years ago? Is it not far too late now to go over to the light water reactor if we are to have any success in export markets? If that is so, surely it is the Government's first duty to lay down a firm policy whatever decision is taken about the reactor, to stick to it and to leave it to the industry to get on with the job without the further risk of change within a substantial number of years.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's last point about a firm policy, but he is asking the Government to reopen the firm decision that was taken in 1974. I think he will recognise that Governments should be reluctant to change their view on something as fundamental and long-term as the thermal reactor system. It is true that the Atomic Energy Authority has invited me to look again at the SGHWR proposal. I have asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to examine the three systems —namely, the SGHWR, the PWR and the advanced gas-cooled reactor. I have asked the industry to report, and I hope to be able to announce a decision some time this year.

In considering these matters, has my right hon. Friend taken into account the latest recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology?

Yes, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State realise that his answer, or attempted answer, to my hon. Friend was no answer? My hon. Friend asked what measures the right hon. Gentleman was taking, and he replied to the effect that it is an important factor. That is not an answer to the question. It underlines the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has no measures to announce. Does he agree that the nuclear power industry is in an extremely demoralised state at present, and that unless some answers are produced fairly soon there will not be an industry for which answers will be relevant?

Candidly, I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the difficulties that arise in assessing—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. I have announced the measures that we are taking. We are asking the Inspectorate to report on the safety of the three systems. I am sure that the House would not expect me to adopt a system that had not been approved. If the hon. Gentleman wants a decision before safety factors are properly assessed—

We want a decision. The right hon. Gentleman has all the facts.

I have not received from the Nuclear Inspectorate its assessment of the safety factors of the PWR, which, I gather, is the hon. Gentleman's choice. I make no apology for waiting until the safety factors have been reported to me before I reach a view.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions the Nuclear Inspectorate has had with its United States counterparts about the safety of fast breeder reactors.

The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has periodic discussions with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with an exchange agreement. The most recent occasion was in October 1976, when a range of nuclear safety matters, including fast reactors, was discussed in the United States of America.

May we assume that the Inspectorate and the Minister himself attach due weight to the views of President Ford when in office—namely, that it is no longer inevitable that plutonium should be recycled? That being so, will he consider following the position of the American Government and declare a moratorium on the reprocessing of spent oxide fuel until much more scientific evidence is available?

I follow very carefully, as I know the right hon. Gentleman does, the worldwide discussions about nuclear matters, because it is not only in this country that Ministers and others are looking carefully at various factors, including the plutonium factor, the speed with which fast breeder reactors should be considered and the problems of reprocessing. I try to keep abreast of the discussions elsewhere but base myself on the position that safety must be a dominant consideration. But I think that the House also knows that in the case of reprocess- ing we have an inherited nuclear programme going back to the Magnox station, authorised in 1956, and that there are many fuel elements that must be reprocessed. I made it absolutely clear when I met a recent Japanese delegation about the Japanese contract that we were in the same position as the Japanese, that we needed reprocessing facilities and that the planning arrangements under the supervision of the Secretary of State for the Environment were at present the governing factor.

As the Flowers Report was received last September and the Secretary of State has had his question-and-answer session, may I ask when we shall have an official Government response to that report and then a chance for the House to debate it?

I have had the opportunity of discussing the report with the chairman of the committee. The report contained many important recommendations, and I think it right that the Government should give a detailed and measured response to the recommendations, some of which impact upon the organisation of government itself. The work of preparing a response is in hand, discussions are in progress, and it will be published as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the latest North Sea oil exploration allocations to applicants under the fifth round.

Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member will now know, my right hon. Friend made a statement on this matter on 9th February.

Why was it not possible for the Secretary of State to give more encouragement to the many smaller British companies which applied?

If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the names that were published on 9th February, he will see that a number of smaller British firms are in this allocation. We hope that there will be more frequent allocations than in the past.

What progress is being made in the dispute between the British and Irish Governments about the ownership of certain blocks?

The Irish Government, unhappily, counter-designated two of our blocks—[Interruption.]—I am using the correct word—the two blocks mentioned in the fifth round. On Friday the United Kingdom Government lodged a formal protest with the Irish Government and also intimated to them that we wished some form of judicial determination to be agreed between us.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although much has been learned since the first round of allocations of exploration licences, when they were handed out like lollipops to children, there is still a great deal that the Government could do to ensure that the wealth from oil goes back to the economy and is recycled to ensure long-term job prospects for the people in Scotland?

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support. Since the last round we have instituted the British National Oil Corporation, we have the petroleum revenue tax and we have taken other measures which bring the take for the British people up to about 85 per cent. of what is produced.

Why have the Government deviated from their declared policy of not arm-twisting in connection with the allocation of licences, when a company with the experience and expertise of Amoco has been excluded in the present round?

I cannot discuss any particular application, because the applications are confidential. I hope that our discussions with Amoco will be continued.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to include only one environmentalist representative on the proposed Energy Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his proposals to establish an energy council.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consumer representation he intends to include on the Energy Commission.

No decisions have yet been taken about the composition and functions of the proposed Energy Commission and no groups or individuals have yet been invited to become members. I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement whicht I hope to make in due course.

May we express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will include more than one environmentalist on the Commission, and that he will consult the Committee for Environmental Conservation on the appointments, if there are more than one, to represent a wide range of conservation bodies in this country?

There are many people with a legitimate interest in the work of the Commission. If it were too big, it might not be effective. I hope that the point that the hon. Gentleman and others have in mind in pressing particular candidates may be met by making the documents for the Commission more open to the public, so that representations can be made by those who cannot themselves be members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his energy forum will not be just a talking shop, with trade union leaders over-represented, but will become a genuine energy forum for the proposal of energy strategy and advice to the Government?

It is intended that it should be a body of people of whom the overwhelming majority have a direct rôle in the industry, on the management and trade union sides. I think that the Government must inevitably retain the control of investment, which is the key question in energy. Therefore, it cannot be an executive body. My intention is that it should bring together those on the side of management and the unions who are most directly concerned with the industries involved.

When my right hon. Friend gets round to making the appointments—on a patronage basis, of course—will he bear in mind that there is strong opposition from a fellow by the name of the Duke of Rutland, who is, with others, opposing the extraction of coal in the Vale of Belvoir? Is he aware that until quite recently this man was Chairman of the East Midlands Economic Planning Council and that it was his aim, so we are told, to try to attract jobs into the East Midlands? As soon as there is an opportunity of finding some employment on his land, he is trying to stop it.

I think the House knows very well that about 500 million tons of coal are thought to lie in the Vale of Belvoir. I cannot give the exact value, but it will be far more than £500 million. The nation's interest in seeing that coal reserves of that kind are fully developed is very well known, but that will be subject to whatever planning procedures my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wishes. I am not responsible for the Duke of Rutland.

Can the Secretary or State confirm whether—if it is finally intended to include a representative from the oil industry involved in the North Sea, which one would have thought extremely important—it is a requirement of the Government that a further union representative should be added to the Commission? Is the right hon. Gentleman turning this into his private form of Bullock, or is it intended genuinely as an Energy Commission to consider energy strategy for the nation?

The question of representation of the oil interest is one that has very much occupied my mind. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the interest of labour in energy is a product of my preference rather than that the fact that the miners dig the coal and other people work in the industries concerned entitles them to be represented—[Interruption.] It is not an executive body; it is a strategy body. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, on the NEDC, the composition of which has become non-controversial between the parties, the representation of capital and labour on an equal basis has long been accepted. It would be ludicrous to try to plan the strategy for energy without the proper representation of labour.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has yet identified the likely subcrisis to which the Minister of State referred during the passage of the Energy Bill [Lords] last year; and, if so, whether he plans to inform the interested parties.

As I explained in Standing Committee, it would be very difficult to try to define precisely in advance every type of situation that might give rise to the use of the permanent price control power in the Energy Act.

Is the Minister aware that many people involved in the non-nationalised sector of the United Kingdom energy arena were considerably concerned at the frequent references to sub-crisis which the Minister made during the passage of the Bill and the fact that since then his Department has not come clean in giving a precise definition of what might trigger off the price control mechanism?

It is very difficult to desscribe such a situation, but one can recognise it when one sees it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, following the inability of the Council of Ministers of the EEC to reach a decision on the siting of the Joint European Torus project, he will now put forward plans, in co-operation with members of the International Energy Agency, and other nations, to develop a British-based fusion programme on the existing facilities and team at Culham.

The fusion research programme of the International Energy Agency is led, by invitation of the members, by the European Atomic Energy Community, whose own programme includes all fusion work at Culham. We now chair the EEC Council of Ministers and are continuing bilateral discussions on JET with our Community partners with the intention of calling a Research Council as soon as progress appears possible.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the Energy Committee of the European Parliament in what was a successful visit, but is he not aware that there has been some confusion at ministerial level between Ministers of Energy, Industry and Science? Has he studied the report of the Select Committee of the other place and the view of Lord Hinton and Lord Ironside about the virtues of Culham as a site? Whatever the decision, whether it is Garching or Culham, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that work should continue at whatever place is not chosen for the JET project? What constructive proposals can he put forward to the Council of Ministers?

The latter point is not at issue. Work on fusion at Culham has been going on since 1955. As Minister for Technology I had responsibility for that for a long period. There is no confusion over this matter. Two Councils of Ministers have been set up within the European Communities—the Research Council that is chaired by the Minister of State, Department of Industry, and the Energy Council that I chair.

Is nuclear fusion regarded by the Minister's Department as an alternative energy source, in the normal language of debate, or as part of the nuclear programme for future years? If the latter, does the Minister see any financial conflict between going ahead with the large cost of the CFR1 and, at the same time, trying to go ahead with the expensive fusion project?

It is difficult to know how to balance the two. I have heard the argument that the fusion programme may be able to generate electricity much earlier than was previously thought and that it will be the turn of the century before the fast breeders become operational on the present basis. It is, therefore, possible that the balance between the two in competing for resources might become a factor. It is right that we should fund JET in order to advance what appears to be a more environmentally acceptable system for generating electricity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy until what year he considers that the North Sea reserves will enable the United Kingdom to be self-sufficient in oil and gas.

Our proved and probable reserves should last into the 1990s at least. The exact period of self-sufficiency depends on the scale of reserves still to be discovered and the Government's licensing and depletion policy during the 1980s.

Can the Minister go further and tell us, on his present best estimate, how long self-sufficiency, particularly in oil, will last? To what extent will he, so far as it lies within his power, ensure that the benefits of this self-sufficiency are not frittered away in the future by extravagant Government spending?

The last point is a large issue of debate and I shall not go into that now. Our estimate is between 3,000 million and 4,500 million tons, which is an enormous range and indicates the difficulty of trying to assess exactly how long we shall maintain self-sufficiency of 100 million tons a year or thereabouts. The Brown Book, when it is published later this year, will show a shift, as there was last year, in recoverable reserves as distinct from absolute reserves.

When are we likely to be self-sufficient in oil? Can my right hon. Friend give an indication, at the present value of the pound, of the the value of the oil at that time?

We are on target for our aim of being self-sufficient in the calendar year 1980. As to the value of the oil then, I should have to consult OPEC.

Does the Minister agree that it would be morally wrong for the country to expand oil production above what we need and to use the money that would be gained to subsidise standards higher than those that we are earning, as we shall then leave nothing for our great-grandchildren?

That argument considerably appeals to me as a Presbyterian. Our first object is to achieve self-sufficiency. The Government will have to take a decision soon on depletion and refinery policies.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he has just given about consultation with OPEC? Does he realise that we should not be allowed to join OPEC within the existing rules, and why is it assumed that the Government will want to charge the same price as OPEC countries for our own product?

We do not have to join a body in order to consult it. It is fair to say, however, that although we do not have to reflect the oil prices charged by OPEC, they are bound to be a factor in deciding the economic well-being of the country.

Does the Minister agree that, in order to extend the period during which we shall be self-sufficient, there is a strong case for the Government looking again at the treatment of marginal fields?

Under present legislation —which I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows about—we have not received any case that we have been able to look upon favourably. But it is a matter that agitates and concerns the Government, and if we are given specific evidence about any of these probelms we shall willingly consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many electricity and gas showrooms have closed in the past year; and how many others are scheduled to close within the next year.

I am informed by the industries that 24 electricity and 14 gas showrooms were closed in 1976. In 1977 they plan to close 17 electricity and 12 gas showrooms.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 10 electricity showrooms are to be closed in Yorkshire, three of them in my constituency? Does he agree that electricity showrooms provide important services in addition to the payment of accounts, and will he urge electricity boards to reconsider this extremely short-term policy with a view to profitable city centre showrooms subsidising less profitable ones in rural areas?

I am aware that the closure of electricity showrooms seems to be falling disproportionately on my hon. Friend's constituency. I recognise his long interest in consumer affairs in this and other fields. Decisions of this nature are for the day-to-day management of the industries, and such decisions are taken only after consultation with the appropriate consultative council or the Gas Consumer Council. I should emphasise that the closures represent fewer than 2 per cent. of all showrooms, and I cannot agree that decisions on the retention of showrooms are matters upon which I should advise the boards. These are decisions that they must take for themselves.

Has not the time come when consideration should be given to merging gas and electricity showrooms, particularly in small towns?

That matter has been considered on a number of occasions. It was considered by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office and it has been reconsidered recently. On both occasions the unanimous conclusion was that there was no case for this.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the extent that the market for coal has been reduced by the increased use of gas.

Coal's share of the overall fuel market has been affected to some extent by the increased use of gas. But it is not possible to say by how much since so many factors affect fuel usage.

Is the Minister aware that the tonnage of coal used in the domestic market has dropped from 28 million tons to 10½ million tons? Is it the policy of the Government to let that trend continue and to let natural gas roar ahead, or have the Government any suggestions for dealing with the matter?

The hon. Gentleman's statistics are certainly questionable. He gives the impression that that has happened in one year. It is a fact that the domestic market has been eroded, and as increased supplies of gas come on to the market they will have an effect on the energy market. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased when I tell him that when there is increasing demand in the energy market there is a bigger take for each of the various energy industries. He will also be pleased to know that this year an extra 5 million tons of coal will probably be burned in power stations.

Does the Minister agree that there would be a possibility of improving domestic sales of gas, electricity and coal for domestic heating if there were established in various urban centres—where these three organisations now operate independently—domestic heating centres where trained people could advise those requiring domestic heating on the best form to suit their requirements?

My hon. Friend answered the point about the amalgamation of various services earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Volley (Mr. Kelley) is very knowledgeable in these matters, and he will know that the National Coal Board is always trying to push the use of coal in the domestic market. One of the significant factors is the many new appliances coming on to the market. I note what my hon. Friend said about the marketing of coal.

Will the Minister confirm that the supply of free and concessionary coal to miners represents nearly one-quarter of all domestic coal supplies? How does he reconcile that with the Government's general attitude towards perks in other industries?

That is not related to the original Question. The supply of concessionary coal to miners is a separate question associated with the industry, and acting on it would not solve the problem of the erosion of the domestic market for coal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to maintaining a balance between the fuels is a drastic reduction in the amount of electricity generation based on oil and an increased proportion of electricity generation attributable to coal and nuclear fuels?

I get the implication of my hon. Friend's question, but I do not believe that the drastic reduction for which he calls is possible. The consumption of oil in power stations has already been drastically reduced, and it is doubtful whether it could be reduced much further.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the estimated amounts of tons of coal supplied from the British coalfields during each of the next 10 years; and what would be the estimated part of those tonnages which would be supplied from the new Selby coalfield.

The recently published tripartite report "Coal for the Future" re-endorsed the target for colliery production of 120 million tons in 1985. Selby is expected to produce 8 million tons a year by then and to reach full production a couple of years later.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the next decade or so the demand for energy is bound to exceed the supply? Will he meet the NUM and the NCB as quickly as possible to discuss the future of the industry in order to ensure increased production by new investment and other methods? Will he also say something about future supplies of anthracite? Is he aware that we were short of anthracite and smokeless fuel in Yorkshire and that this shortage was felt very hard during the last winter?

I had the pleasure of visiting Bentley Colliery, in Yorkshire, on Friday and was very impressed by the effort of the men there. As regards the outlook for the production of coal, the NCB and the NUM have a working party looking into this whole question and it will be reporting shortly. The union and the board are conscious that we shall need an enhanced training scheme to deal with the problem of early retirement. I dealt with anthracite in a previous Question.

Does the Minister agree that Selby is already very far behind schedule and that water table problems there are a great deal more serious than was ever envisaged, with some people in the industry talking about taking three feet out of a nine feet seam? As virtually no work has yet started, would it not have been better to have started the Vale of Belvoir first?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In order to assist him further, I refer him to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) last week.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the countries from which the United Kingdom imports coal, giving the quantities and types of coal imports from each country for the latest available period.

As the information is rather detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Could the hon. Gentleman make a guess as to when we might reach the production targets set for our own industry 20 years ago?

I regret that I could not give the hon. Gentleman that information without notice.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what will be the main topics for discussion at the next meeting of governmental representatives set up under the Lomé Agreement.

If I may refer again to the Vale of Belvoir, I fully accept that we must use our resources as swiftly as possible, but can my hon. Friend assure the people of Leicestershire that the resources will be exploited with the minimum permanent disturbance to the very beautiful surrounding countryside?

I have no hesitation in giving my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. The NCB has given a similar assurance from time to time.

As the market for coal will clearly be affected by its competitiveness, and as there are Press reports of a 15 per cent. rise in coal prices shortly, can the Minister give a clear assurance that there is no truth in the further rumour that there will be an additional price increase later in the year?

It is not the job of a Minister to comment on rumours. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the 15 per cent. increase.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about the agenda for the next meeting of Government representatives under the Lomé Agreement.

The agenda for the next meeting of the Joint Council of Ministers to be held in Fiji on 13th and 14th April will not be settled until later next month. But I expect the council to review all aspects of the convention, including the working of its trade provisions, the operation so far of the European Development Fund and Stabex schemes, and the start of its arrangements for industrial co-operation.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the discussions will include a debate about the common fund and commodity agreements in the wider context of the world discussion of these matters?

I do not see these matters having a high priority on the agenda.

I recognise the important rôle of these discussions and the development of Stabex and the European Development Fund, but does the Minister agree that it is important for this country to open its markets to the manufactured exports of developing countries as an overriding priority and that this should be discussed in public at such meetings?

That is certainly an important part of the overall strategy of development and everything that we shall be talking about in Fiji will be related to that strategy.

Further to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), can the Minister say what consideration his Department is giving to the question of the common fund for commodity stabilisation? Can he assure us that this year the question will not fall fatuously between two stools —his Department and the Department of Trade—as it did at the Nairobi Conference last year?

There is an overall position of the Government on this matter, though the primary responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. We have said all along that we are participating constructively in the discussions and that we wish to investigate the precise terms before finally committing ourselves.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at the European Parliament's Committee on Overseas Development in Brussels on Wednesday there will be criticism of Governments which fail to do all they can to prevent any Lomé Conference being held in Uganda or to prevent the Community being represented at any such conference? Can he assure me that we shall do everything that we can to prevent such conferences being held in Uganda so that I may better be able to defend the British Government?

There is no question of any Community Minister attending such conferences in Ugaanda.

In the light of recent events in Uganda, will consideration be given to the economic privileges currently enjoyed by Uganda under the Lomé Convention? Will this be a matter for discussion?

Community aid to Uganda is a multilateral matter and a subject for the Community as a whole to decide. It is distinct from the United Kingdom's bilateral aid to Uganda, which has ceased. Only one small EDF project has been approved in Uganda, and we and our partners will certainly keep the matter under close review.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much British public money has been expended to date on Rhodesian refugees in Mozambique; and whether the Government intend to make any further contributions.

As my predecessor said in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 14th October last, payment of £50,000 has been made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from the special contribution of £100,000 offered for Rhodesian refugees in Mozambique. The balance will be paid from the aid programme for 1977–78.

Is it not virtually certain that the vast majority of the so-called refugees are, in fact, terrorists under training or Rhodesians who have been abducted and are being indoctrinated? Has any British official been to these camps to check the position? In default of any precise information, why are British taxpayers being required to subsidise terrorism, and Marxist terrorism at that?

The hon. Gentleman has made interventions of that kind before which have been proved to be totally unfounded. There is no reason to suppose that any of the remarks he has just made have any foundation in reality. Our assistance to refugees is concentrated on agricultural, health and educational requirements as well as immediate humanitarian needs, and, indeed, British officials have visited Mozambique.

Does my hon. Friend recall that quite recently the Conservative Party advocated that we should give aid to refugees who went over the border into Botswana? If they are refugees, they should not be distinguished by which border they cross. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we shall continue to consult with the United Nations while there is still an illegal régime in Rhodesia?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government will continue to meet the humanitarian needs of refugees wherever they may be in the world and whenever that need arises.

Has the Mozambique Government's decree of 7th February 1976 concerning the nationalisation of private property affected any British citizens or companies? If so, will this be taken into account?

That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put it down, I shall give him a considered reply.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

I plan to attend and preside at the meeting of Development Ministers provisionally arranged for 22nd March.

When my hon. Friend meets the Development Ministers on 22nd March, will he draw to their attention the intense disappointment in this country that only £10 million of EEC aid will go to the non-associable South-East Asian members of the Commonwealth and others? Will he tell them that at the time of the referendum there was great pressure on the public because it was said that the EEC would be able to help these countries more? Will he tell them that we are disappointed and we look for better things?

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that it is now proposed to allocae 45 million units of account for non-associates. But I certainly share his misgivings about the failure of us all within the Community to respond as fully as we might to the needs of non-associates. This remains a high priority in British policy.

Since the United Kingdom Government occupy the chair of the EEC for the current six months, is the hon. Gentleman intending to raise with the American Administration some of their ideas to increase the trade flow between the Community and the developed world and the developing countries to the mutual benefit of both sides?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in our policy towards development as a whole we always pay high priority to a close dialogue and discussion with our American colleagues.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he has come to any conclusions about the future of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys at Tolworth.

Not yet, Sir. I shall, of course, inform the House as soon as a final decision has been reached, in accordance with my hon. Friend's precedessor's undertaking in the Adjournment debate on this subject on 17th November last.

I was going to refer to that because November 17th is quite a long time ago. Bearing in mind that the Minister then said, and I quote his words—

Order. I reminded the House the other day that quotations at Question Time are not in order except from the Government Front Bench.

Will the hon. Gentleman take fully into account the Minister's assurance on 17th November that more precise information about the future of my constituents would be given as soon as possible? Will he also bear in mind that they are entitled to a more definitive statement than the Minister was then able to make? That was three months ago. When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement about this matter?

I regret the delay and I do not underestimate the problems facing the staff of DOS and their families during this prolonged period of uncertainty. I repeat the undertaking that more information will be available as soon as all the considerations have been gone into. I recognise the special problems on both sides of the question. It is for that reason, and because the DOS is a difficult case, that we are taking another look at the position.

Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that there was great distress in my constituency following the debate on 17th November—

Order. There is great distress in a lot of constituencies, but if we wander around all the constituencies we shall be in trouble.

Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind when reviewing this question that the majority of cartographer jobs are often south of the border? Has he an innate belief that the people of Scotland cannot handle cartography?

It is because this is a complex matter that all considerations will be taken into account before making a decision.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will now instruct the Crown Agents to take the necessary proceedings, in their capacity as a creditor to the Stern Group, to institute bankruptcy proceedings against William Stern.

Proceedings have already been taken by another creditor. It is, therefore, unnecessary for the Crown Agents to do so.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Stern Group crashed owing £110 million? Will he also acknowledge that according to The Sunday Times a few weeks ago the Bank of England leaned on another firm of creditors and stopped it taking the necessary action? Does he also agree that we cannot be sure that Keyser Ullmann will take the necessary action in the end? Since the Crown Agents are one of the 32 creditors, they ought to do the decent thing and file a bankruptcy claim.

My hon. Friend will recognise that it was the judgment of the majority of other creditors—with which the Crown Agents concurred—that there was a better chance of recovering their funds by the orderly run-down of the companies involved. This precludes them from putting any of the companies of which they are creditors into liquidation, but it does not preclude them from taking proceedings in their capacity as personal creditors of William Stern. Indeed, they have specifically refused to settle with him by way of a deed of arrangement.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Crown Agents will not bail out the Labour Party Property Company?

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he hopes to complete his review of the whole programme of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

The process by which priorities and allocations are determined is a continuous one and there is no specific stage at which it is complete. Future disbursement plans for the whole programme are reviewed in an annual cycle. The 1977 cycle is just beginning, and will be particularly important because it must take account of the severe cuts in the aid programme. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is not the practice to publish such plans of annual levels of disbursement for particular countries or programmes.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, except that I did not ask him for the last bit. Can he tell us what are the exact priorities that will be envisaged in implementing these drastic cuts? Is it the Government's intention to make sure that the philosophy contained in the White Paper is the one that is followed?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we intend to stand by the strategy spelt out in the White Paper. Our first priority is to try to avoid cutting any existing commitments. Having done that, we shall put the emphasis, and we shall continue to do, on aid to the poorest countries and increasing the productivity of the poorest communities within the poor countries. As I said in the House on a previous occasion, we shall look closely at how far we can extend our co-operation in this respect not only bilaterally but also within multilateral institutions as well.

Since almost all the Votes for overseas aid come out of the IMF loan, may I ask when the Government are going to stop this farce and cease pretending that we can afford to give money away?

If the hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with some of his hon. Friends who have taken a consistent interest in this topic, he would learn that this is in no sense charity. It is an investment in our future, because increased purchasing power on the part of the world community means increased business for Britain.

What priority is given to countries which have suffered from drought?

Some of the countries affected by drought are among the poorest countries of the world. We are actively reviewing their needs and shall try to maintain priority for them within the reduced aid programme.

Has the Minister noticed that the number of volunteers now serving abroad under the VSO organisation appears to be diminishing? Is it also one of the priorities of his Department to help young people to get jobs abroad in the less-developed countries?

No one can possibly overestimate the continuing significant contribution made by volunteers. It is because of this that I spent an entire day last week in discussions with returned volunteers about their experiences, the needs of the programme as they saw it and, indeed, their general observations about our overall strategy to aid and development matters.