asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current and prospective margins of unused capacity in the electrical generating industry.

The electricity generating industry plans to have an adequate margin of generating plant in reserve to meet abnormally high demand in the event of severe weather and plant breakdown. Recently this margin has been higher than planned. The margin of plant on the Central Electricity Generating Board system over and above last winter's peak demand was 33 per cent. and it is expected to remain at about that level until the early 1980s.

In view of this substantial margin of excess capacity over and above what was planned, will the Minister and his colleagues pay high regard to that factor before yielding to the well-orchestrated lobby that is trying to persuade the Government to authorise the accelerated construction of Drax B power station?

The ordering of Drax B must be seen in the context of the need to preserve a healthy manufacturing capability in this country. The margin has been 20 per cent. during the past few years. However, the industry considers that a higher margin is now justified and has endorsed an increase to 28 per cent., which will be reviewed by the Government in two years' time. At high peak demand, the service capacity with these margins of safety is 5 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that the trouble with the electricity supply industry is that it has too much coal and not enough electrical load? Should not steps be taken by the Department to create a proper pricing policy to obtain more load for the electricity supply industry?

The matter—as my hon. Friend has put it—of too much coal and reduced demand is a factor that the House has debated before. My hon. Friend is well aware of that. However, with expansion in the economy demand will begin to pick up and we may be grateful for the fact that we have this spare capacity.

Is the Minister aware that our potential export markets are having their confidence undermined by the complete lack of decision on the part of the Government in this matter? How long does the Cabinet require to study the relevant documents before reaching a conclusion?

It has been announced that a decision will be taken as quickly as possible. It is a difficult decision. It is not entirely true that export markets are being undermined. There is a worldwide difficulty about demand and potential.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures show a modest upturn in electricity demand and that, therefore, he is right in believing that the sort of margins that there have been recently may not last long? Is he further aware that the debate on Drax B is about the long-term future of an industry, not about a short-term problem which I hope we shall shortly overcome?

The arguments that my hon. Friend has described are about the capability of the manufacturing capacity of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

I last met the Chairman of the Corporation at the BNOC board meeting on Friday 24th June.

Does the Secretary of State support the competitive advantage of North Sea gas? Would it not be a breach of faith with the public and a conspiracy against the consumer if the price of gas were forced up to offset the increasing cost to electricity of the miners' poor productivity and excessive pay claims?

To the best of my knowledge, no such proposal has been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what period of time he anticipates will elapse between the reports being received by him from the Nuclear Power Company and the National Nuclear Inspectorate, and his Department's decision on the choice of the nextthermal nuclear reactor.

I expect to receive the reports shortly and I shall want to study them carefully. I recognise the need for an early decision.

As the Secretary of State has now sacked his Chief Scientist, Dr. Walter Marshall, because he had been advising the right hon. Gentleman to make an early decision rather than to procrastinate about the nuclear future, can he give an assurance that he will not dismiss everybody whenever they disagree with him?

As the hon. Gentleman knows better than I, Dr. Walter Marshall's appointment as chief adviser was on the basis that he would not advise the Secre- tary of State on nuclear matters, for the reason that Sir John Hill, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, is the chief nuclear adviser to the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he chooses the AGR it will have no export potential? Will he consider this point so that British industry may be safeguarded and build the appropriate type of reactors and the necessary machinery in the future?

I am aware of the campaigns going on on both sides of this argument. There is a strong campaign for the light water reactor, which has been going on for some time, based upon the export orders for other light water reactors. I am also well aware of the fact that our formidable achievements have been via the gas-cooled route, through the Magnox and gas-cooled stations. The reason why I am awaiting the reports so anxiously and am anxious to reach as early a decision as possible is that I want to have the considered view of the industry as well as the Nuclear Inspectorate on this matter.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he drags his feet and does not go forward with further orders for a fast breeder, we are losing out to the French and others in many areas throughout the world where there are great potential earnings? Is he aware that he must come to a decision quickly?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been no delay whatever in the fast breeder programme. The rate of spend that I have authorised in the two years I have been Secretary of State has been sufficient to keep the fast breeder programme going. The fast breeder at Dounreay is the finest in the world, well ahead of the Phoenix which the French have built. There is no doubt in my mind that British fast breeder technology is of the highest order to be found anywhere in the world. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, following the Flowers Report, the Government issued a statement describing in detail how they would handle the question of ordering the CFR1.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is his credibility which is at stake, because this is only one of the many decisions which he has not taken and which the public are awaiting? Has it not occurred to him that if he does not start taking decisions quickly he may find himself having a sideways move like Dr. Marshall?

My credibility would be most totally destroyed if I announced what system we should adopt before I had had the advice of the Nuclear Inspectorate, which is a statutory body, and before I had consulted the industry. That supplementary question is totally meaningless. I have received helpful advice from many people, both on the fast breeder reactor and on the thermal reactor. I have received no advice whatever, as I would expect, from the Conservative Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what contacts his Department has had with the Carter Administration on the subject of energy savings.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend visited the United States from 3rd to 6th April for discussions and met Dr. Schlesinger and others. Officials of my Department have frequent meetings with United States officials on many aspects of energy policy, including energy savings.

Following the meetings which the right hon. Gentleman had with United States energy officials, may I ask the Under-Secretary to urge upon his right hon. Friend the need to introduce a co-ordinated energy-saving strategy in the United Kingdom, not identical with but similar to that which has been introduced in the United States, bearing in mind that all that this country has had so far is a rather disgraceful and expensive "Save it" campaign?

The hon. Gentleman should not confuse President Carter's speech with a policy. We already have a co-ordinated policy in the United Kingdom and, far from what the hon. Gentleman says about a wasteful "Save it" campaign, we have a wide range of measures, as he well knows, in industry and in the domestic sector. My right hon. Friend made clear in the House a few weeks ago that we are currently reviewing our energy conservation policy with a view to improving that where possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States grants and loans are specifically provided for domestic premises, with the aim of bringing 90 per cent. of American homes up to the necessary insulation standards? Is he further aware that one of the means by which this is being done is through the electricity companies? Will he initiate discussions with our own electricity authorities with a view to operating a similar system, whereby improvements are carried out by the electricity authorities and recouped later by payments from the consumer?

I am aware of the points to which the hon. Member refers and of various other schemes in other countries. We are looking at these with great interest. I am currently engaged in a round of discussions with the nationalised industries and the oil industry in the private sector to see how best we can co-ordinate our efforts on a voluntary basis to deal with conservation measures.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that perhaps the best comment so far on the Government's conservation programme came from his right hon. Friend the Minister of State when replying to a debate a little while ago? Is he aware that it was obvious from his right hon. Friend's remarks that he and the Department feel contrite and apologetic about the lack of success that has been achieved so far? Would not this explain the need to look at the programme again?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State can answer for himself. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that the remarks to which he refers mean that we are not well aware of the need for conservation and the need to strengthen our policies whenever possible, he is mistaken. From the energy elasticities report, Energy Paper 17, it was concluded that we saved about 6 per cent. of our primary energy requirements. That is a fairly good measure of success, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a report of his term as President of the Council of Energy Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on his term of office as President of the Council of Energy Ministers.

I made a statement on my term as President of the Council of Energy Ministers in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) on 30th June, when I also laid in the Library a copy of my published report on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Brunner, in Edinburgh, referred to the "I'm all right, Jack" policy of the Government and the Secretary of State? Is he further aware that this presidential period has got us nowhere? We do not have JET as yet, we have not been able to get coal exports to Europe increased and, finally, we have not got a minimum selling price for oil. What has the right hon. Gentleman achieved? Nothing.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the JET matter is for the Research Council, not the Energy Council. He will also know that the coal issue was one on which we pressed strongly but without success. As for the minimum selling price, if the hon. Gentleman reads the report he will see that, apart from Euratom loans, coking coal and the work programme, Commissioner Brunner expressed himself as being well satisfied with the achievements of the past six months. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has read wrongly into that speech by Commissioner Brunner a criticism of our Presidency.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our view on the Conservative side of the House is that his term as President had just about the success we would expect when all his colleagues at the meetings knew that he was totally opposed to the idea of a European energy policy in any case? Is he further aware that we regard the failure to agree even on a site for the JET project as a major setback for a most important European research project? Although he says that this is a matter for the Research Council, is it not a fact that he appeared before that Council?

All I can say on the JET project is that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the European Assembly demanded that JET be sited at Ispra. The British position has not been helped by the total lack of support for JET which has been evidenced by the Opposition.

Not true.

There has been absolutely no support. The last time the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made a criticism of my Presidency, the example he cited was that during my Presidency the German courts had delayed the German nuclear programme. If he reads Hansard, he will find that his criticisms then were as foolish as those he has made today.

Is it not, as a general rule, a better principle for British Ministers to take an attitude of constructive criticism in the Common Market, as my right hon. Friend has done, rather than the meaningless and supine sell-out attitude towards British interests which would be adopted by the Euro-fanatics on the Tory side?

The attitude we have adopted is to work actively and constructively, to see all the Ministers, discuss with them and send regular reports, which I did, and at the same time, at the Council meetings, to put up a vigorous defence of our own interests, exactly as every other member country in the Community does. That is the right way to proceed. The three examples given by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on JET, coal and MSP were examples of difficulties created by other members of the Community involving projects of great importance to this country.

During his Presidency of the Council of Energy Ministers, did the right hon. Gentleman form any impression as to whether there would be difficulties for his Government obtaining their objective of up to two-thirds of North Sea oil being refined in the United Kingdom as a result of anxiety on the part of the Commission or Continental Europeans that there should be consideration of a European context in oil refining?

Anyone who follows energy policy, as the House does, will know that there are conflicts of interest in each country between producers and consumers and difficulties in different areas. Those conflicts of interest present themselves internationally in exactly the same way as they do within a nation State. The basis upon which I would answer the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not suppose for one moment that the Commission would seek to challenge the development of an oil policy in the United Kingdom dealing with refineries, landing rights, participation and the rôle of BNOC, which are so manifestly in the interests of the people of this country, any more than I was prepared to engage in public criticism of other member States when they found themselves unable to support things on the ground that they were contrary to their interests. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed about my Presidency is that there has been not one word, publicly or by private briefing, of criticism of other nations that have stood up for their own interests.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first two supplementary questions that we have had from the Opposition suggest not merely that the national interest would be treated quite frivolously if they were in power, in general terms, but that they would be quite agreeable to the siting of JET elsewhere than at Culham? Will he explain to Opposition Members that they need to make their position abundantly clear on that matter?

I should be greatly helped if a firmer line were taken by the Opposition on the siting of JET and if there were firmer support and if my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who took the chair at that very difficult meeting, in pursuit of perfectly legitimate and objective chairmanship, had not been in receipt of a rain of criticism for handling a difficult matter with considerable skill.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation to discuss further participation in the oil industry.

I have very frequent meetings with the Chairman of BNOC, the most recent of which was this morning, at which we discuss participation amongst other matters. I met the members of the Corporation in Glasgow on 24th June.

As part of the reason for public participation in the oil industry is to ensure better employment prospects, will my right hon. Friend tell the BNOC and BP that it is absolutely intolerable that hundreds of workers' jobs are at risk in the offshore oil construction industry, on Clydeside and elsewhere, at a time when we hear reports that 500,000 man-hours of work for the Sullom Voe project are being done in yards in Holland?

My hon. Friend will know that when I was in Glasgow last Friday week I took the opportunity of having a meeting with the Offshore Supplies Office and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the management and unions from John Brown Engineering. I followed that up with a meeting on the following Monday with BP, and further meetings took place during the course of the week. It is the function of the Offshore Supplies Office to see that full and fair opportunity allows British firms to compete. This is a continuing function of the Department and of the OSO. My hon. Friend will also know that in the case of Marathon an order for a rig was placed by BNOC, in pursuit of the objectives that he and I share.

As the criticism referred to by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) originated from Mr. Gavin Laird, a director of BNOC, and was referred to by me during the energy debate, when I also drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that BNOC had not ordered a single British supply ship, what further investigation has the right hon. Gentleman made into the matter?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in winding up the debate a few days ago, gave a very clear immediate answer, which was that BNOC inherited from the Burmah Oil Company—BODL—a pattern of use of supply ships. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, immediate inquiries were initiated, and I shall inform the House of the results as soon as possible.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report which states that oil production will exceed requirements by 1979? In view of the great benefit to Britain that flows from this oil, will he give an assurance that there will be maximum participation in ownership of the offshore oilfields, and will he refuse the persistent Opposition demands to sell it off to foreign interests and oil companies abroad?

The fifth round licences, which were the first of the licences for which the British Government were responsible, are on the basis of a genuine 51 per cent. equity. Helped largely with the petroleum revenue tax and the royalty in oil, this will mean that 85 per cent. of the revenue from the fifth round licences will accrue to the British taxpayer and the British Treasury through the national oil account. That is not a bad achievement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that BNOC has made a request to him to have favourable treatment in the allocation of new licences? Will he further confirm that in no circumstances will he grant such an unfair trading concession, particularly as his predecessor gave a categorical assurance, not only to this House but to the industry, that this would not happen?

I referred to that matter in the debate last week, and the reference can be found in Hansard. The difference between the present position and the position some time ago is that we now have a State oil corporation, able and empowered by Act of Parliament to take part in every part of the oil business, here and abroad. If we are to make sense of the powers that we now have in the national interest, it would certainly be right for me to consider most seriously proposals for sole licences. No decision has yet been reached. It might be a very good way of develop- ing a conservation policy which would allow us to know where the oil was and then develop it to suit our own national interests.

asked the Sec retary of State for Energy if he will issue a direction to BNOC regarding its com pliance with the terms of the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968.

No, Sir. The jurisdiction orders operate, in those matters which they govern, independently of any policy adopted by BNOC and other licensees. No direction is needed.

Is the Minister of State aware that the BNOC is operating in defiance of Parliament under the order by not using Scots law in relation to these oilfields, which clearly lie within Scottish jurisdiction of the North Sea? What is he going to do about this betrayal of the Scottish legal system, which was guaranteed by the Treaty of Union?

No, Sir, I am not aware of that, because it is not true. The BNOC is perfectly at liberty, with the other companies concerned, to apply Scots law to its contracts, or English law, and it does so. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to the contrary, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to re- introduce the scheme for selective assist ance to electricity consumers next winter; and if he will consider extending the scheme to cover other types of fuel and amend the qualifications so as to increase the number of beneficiaries.

We are keeping under review the need for helping those on low incomes with the cost of fuel.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is growing concern about the delay in announcing the Government's intentions about assistance towards fuel costs next winter? If he goes ahead with a scheme, as I very much hope he will, will he take account of the criticisms made of last winter's scheme in view of the fact that it did not help those who are dependent upon coal or gas for the majority of heating costs and those who are just above supplementary benefit level and who, therefore, lost out entirely and were denied any assistance?

Gearly, we recognise that there is always concern about people on low incomes having to face high fuel bills, but to say that there is growing concern about an announcement is to overstate the case. We have just finished last winter's scheme. We have not yet had opportunity fully to review its working. But of course, if we can draw any lessons from the working of the scheme last winter and if we were to repeat it next winter, we should put them into practice wherever possible.

When the hon. Gentleman analyses the reports on last year's scheme, will he look further particularly at those on the poverty line and those who face a conflict between claiming rent and rate rebates and supplementary benefit?

I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in this point and that of other hon. Members. However, only a very small percentage of those who opt for rent or rate rebates fall into this borderline area. The overwhelming majority of people who are in receipt of rent or rate rebates have incomes substantially above the level for supplementary benefit.

Does not my hon.Friend agree that in addition to these very desirable special schemes it is absolutely essential to keep down nationalised industries' prices in the fuel sector for all consumers if we are to have a successful transition to phase 3 or whatever it is to be called?

The Government made a decision early in their life to move towards the economic pricing of fuel. That remains the position. Within that broad general position, it is important to ensure not only that the right decisions are made on investment and conservation grounds but that fuel is available to industrial and domestic consumers at prices they are able to afford.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now invite the CEGB to place the order for the Drax B power station.

Discussions are continuing, but I recognise the need for an early decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that procrastination is now becoming a real threat to jobs and that there are overwhelming reasons for making this decision quickly? Can he confirm that competitive tendering for this order, which would delay work on the shop floor by up to two years, would not achieve the objective which was intended—that of saving jobs in the industry? Does he not agree that that would be nonsense which the Government should not entertain?

The energy case for Drax B is not in dispute. The problem is over the restructuring, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The question of competitive tendering is one that would have to await decision on the order itself. It is recognised that the previous Government, when Ince B was put out, did not engage in competitive tendering for similar reasons.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that some time ago he gave an interview at a firm in my constituency, Babcock and Wilcox, which is the largest firm in London dealing with generating equipment and which involves 15,000 people? Is he aware that we were impressed with the way in which he handled that negotiation? Can he do something about the uncertainty that the decision on Drax B is creating for this and other firms because they do not know what the future holds for them?

I recall the visit to Babcock and Wilcox when I saw management and workers. I also went to see the plant at Renfrew. The problem arises not so much concerning the restructuring and the boiler-makers but on the more difficult questions involving the turbogenerator manufacturers. The Government can proceed only by trying to reach an agreement by consent between those concerned. The powers do not lie with us to impose a solution. These are matters for the Secretary of State for Industry.

May we have clarification about competitive tendering? May I remind the Secretary of State that his Under-Secretary of State gave a categoric assurance to the House that there would be competitive tendering?

The record does not show that. The hon. Member is always reminding me that the nationalised industries themselves have prime powers in this matter. A decision about competitive tendering does not in the first instance lie with the Government. The hon. Member will also recall that in similar circumstances his Government thought it right not to go for competitive tendering. That is a very important precedent which must be uppermost in our minds.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his visit to Renfrew was extremely welcome? Does he recall that we exposed the job figures in relation to delays in the Drax B project and that with every day that passes further redundancies are being considered? Does he accept that redundancies must be avoided at all costs? Will he bring pressure on his colleagues and say that if the restructuring does not take place he must cut the Gordian knot and put the contract where everybody expects it to go—to the North-East and to Babcock and Wilcox in Renfrew?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I remember discussing the problem with him when I was in Renfrew. I am anxious that there should not be any playing off between the management and work forces of the companies concerned. They are all caught in the serious situation of a serious dip in ordering, and jobs are threatened. The research and development technology and management in all these centres, in turbo generating and boiler manufacturing, are of the highest world standards. It is important not to allow one group to be played off against the other while these matters are dealt with.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with progress to date in the exploration of the Celtic Sea for oil.

Although no discoveries have yet been made, exploration is still continuing. It would, however, be premature to attempt a realistic assessment of prospects at this stage.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because the level of activity has been so low the licensees are unlikely to be able to complete their drilling programmes by the end of the licence period? Does not that cause him some concern? What will he do when the licence periods come to an end?

The sad fact is that, of the seven wells that have been drilled so far, six have been failures. The findings on the seventh have not yet been released. Up to March next year 14 wells are due for drilling. It is for the licensees to decide on the prospects of those wells. The Government are keen to see some findings here—and I include Cardigan Bay in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated probable cost of lost orders to British Nuclear Fuels from overseas processing contracts due to delays brought about by the present environmental inquiry.

I am advised that the value of potential overseas business for the proposed oxide reprocessing plant is some £600 million. Signature of these contracts has been delayed but I am not aware that any orders have been lost.

May we have an assurance that once this inquiry is out of the way, and assuming that it is favourable to British Nuclear Fuels, the Government will stand solidly behind BNF—a State-owned company—in obtaining work in this country and in markets abroad?

I said precisely that on 12th March 1976. That is the position of the Government. The planning inquiry, which falls to the Secretary of State for the Environment, is under the control of different legislation. The delay in signing the contract is not confined to the United Kingdom. The French, who are co-signatories, have also not signed their contract with the Japanese.

Is not the Minister aware that the French company Cogema can go ahead and sign the contract, although it has been deferred for the time being? Is he aware that if the hearing is too long delayed the French company might go ahead in any case?

I have heard a lot of rumours about this. With a contract of this magnitude at stake, I have gone out of my way, not only in discussions in Tokyo when the problem first arose but with the Japanese Ambassador in London on more than one occasion and with Japanese utilities, to assure them that it is not a delaying tactic. I have told them that we have to satisfy ourselves, under domestic legislation, that a matter of this magnitude is handled under proper planning procedures. I have also told the Japanese—and they fully understand—that as customers of Windscale we are in equal difficulties. The difficulties apply to them and to us. I think that that position is fully understood.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on these Benches, as well as outside the House, strongly support the Government in ensuring that an inquiry is carried out before a final commitment is made?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he speaks for many who, without prejudice to one's attitude to British nuclear development, believe that it would be odd not to use planning procedures for the building of a big reprocessing plant when planning permission is needed to build an extension, a garage or a conservatory. I am grateful for that support.

Since the Secretary of State for the Environment urged that this should be a speedy inquiry, and since there are Press reports that it might last until October, may we have an assurance that when the findings are made we shall have a direct decision? The Secretary of State will recall that we supported the setting up of the inquiry but urged that it should be completed quickly.

The one thing about which the House is agreed is that there should be no undue delay, but in addition—I am grateful to the House for this also—it is recognised that one could not have gone forward without a proper planning inquiry. Without prejudice to what the outcome may be, there is no desire to delay matters, for many reasons and, in part, for the reason set out in my answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent consultations he has had with representatives of North Sea divers.

I held a meeting with representatives of the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors on 16th June about the effects of the application of PAYE to divers who had previously been taxable under Schedule D.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the degree of insensitivity which has been shown by the Inland Revenue towards this group of extremely courageous and hard-working men is taxing their patience to the end? Since they have hitherto shown an extremely responsible attitude but this may now be in danger, will the right hon. Gentleman consider using his good offices in discussion with his Treasury colleagues with a view to having another look at the position in order that North Sea production shall not be interfered with in any way?

Yes, Sir; I have already indicated, as has my right hon. Friend, that we ought to discuss these matters in view of the further representations which we have had from the association. I entirely agree that these are very brave men, there is a lot at stake for them, and damage could possibly result for our country. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Inland Revenue treatment of all citizens must be equitable and fair. I remind him of what happened in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill on 23rd June when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replied on this matter. I agree that the divers have shown a responsible attitude. All I would say to them is that, despite the representations, they ought to secure rights of appeal in as many individual cases as they can.

I declare a secondary interest here. Does not the Minister agree that if the Treasury does not somewhat alter its view there will be a serious possibility that we shall have to rely on foreign nationals for diving work in the North Sea, that although the British divers are now probably more highly trained than any other divers in the world we may have to rely on others outside this country to meet the demand, particularly for saturation diving, and that, if that happens, it will be a major factor with consequences for our oil production in the years 1979, 1980 and 1981?

Yes, Sir; I do not dissent from the view that it could have an adverse effect on certain diving activities, and we might have to rely more and more on foreign nationals to do this work in order to meet what is required. But I do not entirely agree wtih what the hon. Gentleman says about the effect on oil development. We have asked the companies and so far they have given no positive response that that is their view. However, we are actively in conversation with colleagues on the matter. But I return to what I said, that we must be absolutely clear that in Inland Revenue matters every citizen is treated equally.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects to announce the appointment of the members of the Energy Commission.

I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 28th June. I shall make an announcement about the allocation of the seven non-producer seats on the Energy Commission as soon as possible.

In the light of that Written Answer and of the Government's comments in their response to the Flowers Report about the importance of adequate institutional arrangements to take account of the environmental side of energy developments, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the environmental and conservationist elements are sufficiently represented on the Commission if they are outnumbered by at least two to one?

As the House recognised, it is a difficult matter. Everybody wanted to be on the Commission, and I therefore tried to reach a part-solution by making clear that the Commission documents would be made available so that no one would be at a disadvantage even if not on the Commission. Others will be able to come. There are a large number of interests. There are the industrial interests and consumer interests. I may not be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that all the interests about which he is concerned will be represented, but at least matters will be conducted openly and others will know what is happening and hence will be able to influence decisions before they are made.

Will every legitimate technical interest be represented, including the technical staff in the electricity supply industry?

I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the EPEA, of which he is a distinguished member, and he put his question in a very modest way. No doubt he would like to know whether he or his general secretary could be on the Commission. The problem is this. The trade union side—the TUC fuel and power committee—not itself wanting an enormous Commission, suggested that the trade unions should be represented by the six unions on the fuel and power committee which were also members of the General Council. I discussed this with my hon. Friend's general secretary and I believe that, although disappointed, he appreciates the problem. He will have the papers and will be able to go as and when necessary. I think that he understands the difficulty.

Has the Secretary of State noticed the irony in his own speech last Tuesday when, while on the one hand boasting of the success of British offshore activity and the figures for oil production, on the other hand he announced the setting up of his Energy Commission and specifically excluded from the Commission any representation of the offshore operators which had been responsible for the successful development?

This is another case of someone who has a strong claim. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman knows, UKOOA has a place in the participation arrangements and each member company of UKOOA will have regular and ongoing deep consultations with the Department of Energy and myself about its own interests. I have signed, or am in process of signing, a consultation agreement with each of them.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she has completed her review of the best methods of transferring appropriate technology to developing countries; and if she will make a statement.

An official working party has recommended that existing aid activities to promote intermediate technology should be intensified. It also recommends a number of new activities to be supported initially by at least £500,000 a year from the aid programme. I have accepted the recommendations, which, I believe, constitute an important step in our policy of increasing the emphasis in the aid programme on the poorer groups in the developing countries. The report will be published today.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that full reply. In the course of the review and consultations, was the Department of Trade included, and did its officials share with me and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends concern at the growing loss of trade which we are undergoing in our trade with the least developed countries? Second, has the right hon. Lady looked specifically at the commercial possibilities and opportunities which may exist for the transfer of appropriate technology?

There were, as is normal, interdepartmental consultations on this matter. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, he may have noticed—I am sure that he has—the statistics which I gave in Cardiff a week ago about our loss of trade with developing countries. I am profoundly convinced that we have a tremendous opportunity to expand trade and British exports with developing countries if we produce products appropriate to their needs. I greatly hope that this will be the beginning of an effort to promote just that, although, of course, it is only one aspect, and can be only one aspect, of a drive in that direction.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the announcement she has just made, but can she tell us a little more about where the £500,000 will be spent? Will it be spent in overseas countries of the Third World or in this country, or, if not, where?

I think that it will probably be spent mainly in supporting groups in this country which are promoting the development of intermediate technology. For example, I am certain that the Intermediate Technology Development Group will play a full part in this initiative. I think that the money will be mainly spent here.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she intends to introduce any additional measures for overseas development, following the Commonwealth Leaders' Conference in June.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when she intends to introduce any additional measures for overseas development and planning following the Commonwealth Conference in June.

In their final communique the Commonwealth Heads of Government outlined a number of ways in which the Commonwealth as a body intends to promote economic and social development among its poorer members. We wholeheartedly endorse these proposals.

As the provision of more opportunities in education is one of the most meaningful ways by which we can help underdeveloped countries, are there any new initiatives forthcoming to help overseas students, especially from underdeveloped Commonwealth countries, who face the exorbitant increase in tuition fees imposed on them by the Department of Education and Science?

As my hon. Friend will know, students who come here under the student and scholarship system of my Ministry are not affected by the fees increase. However, we are concerned about this matter, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I and others are seeking to find a way in which we can resolve some of the undoubted problems which occur with poor students from rich countries or poor students from poor countries who are not covered by my Ministry's programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us were greatly distressed, as I am sure she was, at the cut of £50 million last November in the United Kingdom aid programme? Can she tell the House when it is likely to be restored to its previous level?

I wish that I could tell my hon. Friend that it will be restored immediately, but I am afraid that I cannot. As he will know, the question of public expenditure on this programme, as on others, will be falling for collective consideration in the months ahead. I trust that a full recognition of the self-interest of Britain and of other factors will enable the cut to be restored.

Did not the Commonwealth leaders recognise the important rôle to be played by Western private investment in helping to improve the standard of living in developing countries? What action is the right hon. Lady taking to facilitate and encourage this?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware from everything I have said in the House on this subject that I regard this as a matter for a direct relationship between the developing countries and private investors. That is the best way to approach it.

In view of the denunciation by the Commonwealth leaders of the régime in Uganda, can my right hon. Friend give two assurances: first, that there will be no question of any aid, direct or indirect, going to Uganda during the rule of the present murderous régime, and, secondly, that she will consult the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade in an attempt to stop the indirect aid which Uganda is getting through the current trade going on between the countries?

On my hon. and learned Friend's second point, as he may be aware, such consultations are already continuing. There are great obstacles, as I think he knows. Nevertheless, we are seeking to see what can be done.

May I, on behalf of the Opposition, totally reject what the right hon. Lady has just said?

The hon. Gentleman was not around at the time of the debates which took place then. I recall the precise debate in which—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the Chamber at the time. I recall the precise debate in which Conservative speakers welcomed what had happened in Uganda.

rose—

Mr. Forman. Question No. 35.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of a previous exchange in questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) gave the impression that the previous Administration had not received the rule of President Amin with enthusiasm, whereas I have a clear memory of the fact that they received it with ecstasy, in spite of his record of being a murderer throughout his military career. In the interests of good order of the House, could an opportunity be provided for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark?

It is not a point of order, but I will allow the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) the opportunity to speak.

I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on a second occasion. The right hon. Lady said that I had not been around while all these matters were discussed. I have been a Member of this House for 18 years and have taken an intense interest in these subjects. I visited President Amin shortly after he became President of Uganda. On my return I saw the then Conservative Foreign Minister and told him that I thought President Amin was an exceedingly dangerous man who would cause nothing but tragedy for Uganda.

rose—

Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Horncastle to make a point. It was not on a point of order. I felt that it was fair to allow the hon. Gentleman that opportunity.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend—

It was not a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would an apology from me to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) be permitted? I apologise to him personally because, in the light of what he has said, it is clear that his was one of the voices which counselled against the then current opinion of the British Conservative Government.

Order. That is a nice way in which to begin the week.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the estimated cost of the new aid commitments for the United Kingdom which have arisen out of the North-South dialogue.

The only new aid commitment arising from the North-South dialogue to which a specific figure has been attached is the $1 billion "Special Action" programme of quickly disbursing aid to individual low-income countries. The United Kingdom share of this will be $115 million, equivalent to about £67 million.

In view of the difficulty of raising sums of that kind, and bearing in mind the Prime Minister's statement over the weekend that there was light at the end of the national economic tunnel, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that many of us on this side of the House would want to support any efforts which she might make, collectively or otherwise, to get the aid budget up again on overseas official assistance?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but he will have observed what the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said in the aid debate of 10 days or two weeks ago. I hope that he will persuade his hon. Friends to support the commitment which he and, I know, others on the Conservative Benches would like to make.

Will my right hon. Friend, in examining any of the aid commitments which her Department is to make—and all are welcome—investigate the possibility of spending more money on the teaching of English abroad which the Prime Minister agreed, after the Commonwealth Conference, was a very important aspect of our relations with our Commonwealth partners in particular?

We should be very glad to extend our operations in this field. As my hon. Friend knows, we already do a great deal, and so does the British Council. Indeed, last week I had the opportunity of talking to representatives of one of the French Portuguese-speaking countries of Africa who emphasised to me how much they wanted the teaching of English and the British cultural presence to be part of whatever Britain could do in co-operation with them. I am completely aware of this.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the 45 million units of account recently agreed by the EEC Development Council in Luxembourg for non-associated States in Asia and South America will be devoted to rural development.

It has not yet been decided what proportion of the 45 million units of account will go towards rural development, but all member States appear to be generally in favour of projects in aid of food production in its broadest sense, and the Commission has this need very much in mind.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and welcome his sensitivity about the question of food production, but will he not agree that the most important question in rural development relates to subsistence economies where the cash increase to people in need may not be shown? Will he press on his colleagues in the EEC that this is the best and most urgent type of development to help people most in need?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I can give him the assurance which he seeks. Not only will the pressure be maintained; it is being made to be felt in the Community.

What approaches has my hon. Friend had in this connection from the new Government of India? Can he give an assurance that we, through the EEC and in our own account, will give every assistance we can to them?

The interests of India were very much to the forefront in the attitude of the British delegation at the last Meeting of the Council of Development ministers when we pushed very strongly for the proportion of the 45 mua going to the Asian countries to be somewhat larger than that which other countries would have liked to see.