asked the Secretary of State for Energy what financial resources his Department proposes to allocate to each of the alternative sources of energy over the next year; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his statement, Official Report, 9th December, column 906, what are the latest figures available for the amounts spent on research into each of the alternative sources of energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of Government expenditure on research into each of the renewable sources of energy.

Figures for future annual expenditure on individual renewable sources cannot be given, as research and development funds are allocated on a programme basis. Since April 1976 the Department has announced a two to three-year programme on wave energy costing £2·5 million, a three-year programme on geothermal energy costing £900,000, and a four-year programme on solar energy costing £3·6 million, bringing the total Government expenditure on solar energy to £6 million over that period. In addition, the Department has allocated £250,000 to cover studies relating to wind energy and tidal energy.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply. Are he and his right hon. Friend satisfied with the scale of the allocation given the nature of the energy problems confronting us? In particular, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the allocation given the possibilities of wind power, with special reference to the efforts made by my eminent constituent, Sir Martin Ryle, in developing research into alternative energy possibilities, including wind power?

Renewable sources of energy involve a technology that is in its infancy. There is much work to be done and much to be learnt before we embark on greater expenditure. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are spending enough. Most renewable sources of energy are at an early development stage. There is a substantial research and development programme to help establish feasibility and acceptability. If current work yields results, expenditure will be increased to allow further development work to proceed as appropriate.

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the early stage of many techniques, but does he not feel that the research budget is chicken feed? Does he accept that in a few years we may have to make a decision on the fast breeder reactor, and that we shall be able to make that decision properly only if by then we are able to evaluate the contribution of energy sources in support of coal, such as wave power and the Severn Barrage, by the end of the century?

That is precisely why said I in answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) that renewable sources of energy technology is in its infancy. The inference in my hon. Friend's supplementary question as regards other countries is not a profitable example. There is not a great deal to be gained from trying to compare expenditures. Much depends, for example, on the different problems and the different programmes of other countries according to their likely indigenous sources of energy and how long they are likely to last. Each country has to tackle the problems according to the conditions that it finds within its own borders.

What total energy consumption do the Government expect renewable resources to provide in five years and ten years? If the figure is very low, does that not emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) about inadequate funds being available for research?

The allocation of more funds will not necessarily develop the technology that the House and the country want to see, namely, the development of indigenous renewable sources of energy. As I have said, the technology is in its infancy. As the hon. Gentleman knows from answers to Questions on other occasions, we have tried to identify the millions of tons of coal equivalent that we are likely to get from renewable sources of energy to the end of the century. With the best will in the world, we could not sustain an energy economy based purely on renewable sources of energy. Nevertheless, they are important and valuable resources.

With the best of respect, and with all good wishes, I think that supplementary questions and answers should be briefer.

Will my hon. Friend be particularly blunt to those who think that alternative sources for energy form some kind of soft option enabling us to get out of awkward nuclear arguments? In particular, will he be sceptical about wind power? Is it not a fact that the equivalent of the modern nuclear power station would be only 30,000 windmills and would occupy only 400 square miles of constantly wind-swept territory? What would the conservationists think of that?

In deference to your request, Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that I know that my hon. Friend has written articles on this subject. We in the Department are blunt and realistic.

Is the Minister aware that the weak link in the Government's policy on alternative sources of energy is the fact that they are not doing enough to promote export potential, particularly for such things as solar-driven irrigation, which would be useful in areas of Africa?

If our plans for and our investment in renewable sources of energy come to fruition—and there is a great deal of optimism—we shall certainly bear in mind the tremendous export potential. I believe that we shall achieve this potential.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects planning agreements will be negotiated with the State corporations for which he is responsible.

As I announced in November, the Government, National Coal Board and coal mining unions have entered into an agreement on joint planning procedures, embracing a formal planning agreement. I have informed the House of my intention of developing suitable joint planning arrangements with the other publicly-owned fuel industries.

The Secretary of State must be aware that that is only one corporation of which he is in charge. Does he propose to give a specific directive to the BNOC under the terms of Section 4 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act 1975 to order it to enter into a planning agreement? Does he intend to make the granting of Government contracts and finance subject to the conclusion of planning agreements?

The tripartite talks in the fuel industries have become most advanced in respect of the mining industry. I am developing them elsewhere. The participation discussions with the oil companies permit development of a similar kind—

Not planning agreements.

That is quite correct. I hope that those discussions will become tripartite. The refinery discussions have become so. I hope to make progress on that basis.

Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on his reply? Is he aware that in Scotland there is a lot of worry about the fact that petrochemical developments are unlikely to take place because of the individual requirements of oil companies for their own refining activities? Will he enter into negotiations with BNOC so that participation oil can be used to encourage the expansion of the petrochemical industry in Scotland from Scottish oil resources if individual oil companies prove to be non-responsive?

I have had the first tripartite meeting with the oil companies and the unions about refinery problems and downstream activities. I have in mind the desirability of developments in this area, but I have to take account of the fact that there is extra capacity at the moment.

What will the planning agreement with the coal industry do? Will there be on the agenda matters such as wages, quite apart from safety? Will it go in depth into finding out how we are to sell coal over the medium and long term, bearing in mind that the Common Market countries are buying very little coal and that we have more than 30 million tons of coal at the pit head? Is the Minister aware that, if the productivity schemes work as he says they will and as the Opposition say they will, there will be even more coal to sell? What planning agreement does he have for selling coal?

As the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and my hon. Friend know, the planning agreement will cover forward marketing, prospects for coal, the objectives for output and productivity, financial results with implications for prices and borrowing, investment plans, capital investment, product and process development and exports, The agreement will cover the whole area. If we look back at the record of the mining industry over the past year, with the stock support for coalburn in Scotland and Wales, the Government increase in support for the pension scheme, Drax B, early retirement and so on, it will be seen that the industry has a fine record.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since we are given to understand by the Government that the failure to reach planning agreements in the private sector has been due to the intransigence of private sector companies, we note with interest that very little progress seems to have been made in the public sector? If it is not possible to achieve planning agreements, would it not be a good start if we had a few financial targets for some of the nationalised industries as a beginning?

The last Conservative Government wrecked the financial plans of every nationalised industry. I say that because it should be put on the record. There is a White Paper on financial targeting in preparation. The hon. Gentleman must know, or should know, that the relations between the Government and the nationalised industries have been, bilaterally, on the same basis as a planning agreement for many years. What we are trying to do is to make them tripartite.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what conclusions his Department has reached as to the effect on the production of coal of productivity agreements, from the evidence forthcoming from pits where such schemes are operating.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the change in coal output resulting from the new pit productivity bonus system.

I am informed by the National Coal Board that incentive agreements have now been negotiated for most parts of the country but as yet have been fully implemented in less than one-third of the collieries. It is not yet possible to make any balanced estimate of even the initial effect of these schemes on overall national output. Production for the last three weeks of January in the relevant areas increased by about 10 per cent. compared with the pre-incentive position in October and November 1977.

Is not the Minister concerned about the growing anomalies in bonuses paid between different areas? If so, what does he intend to do about the matter? On reflection, does he not wish that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been a bit more vigorous at the time of the national ballot?

My right hon. Friend has made his position perfectly clear. It is too early to start drawing definite conclusions about the variation of figures. The schemes are self-financing and will be paid for out of increased productivity.

Before reaching any euphoric conclusions about the future output of the coal industry as a result of the productivity schemes, will my hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that they are likely to lead to widespread industrial unrest because of the conclusions reached by people who are not able to take into account the varied conditions in the mining industry generally?

I realise that the view expressed by my hon. Friend has been expressed elsewhere. It is too early yet to make predictions about what will happen in the coalfields because of the implementation of productivity schemes. Perhaps the House will want to come back to this subject. I would not want to hang my hat on the argument that the schemes will mean more industrial action until they have run a little longer.

If it is too early to judge how the productivity schemes are working, may we ask for an assurance that the Minister will keep his eye on these schemes to ensure that there is fairness and that they are genuine productivity schemes? Will he bear in mind that there will be wide discrepancies between the more easily operated pits and those which are more difficult to work and that it will, therefore, be necessary to produce a genuine reward for the men in both types of pit?

The schemes are genuine productivity schemes. The hon. Member asks me to keep my eye, like Big Brother, on the miners in various areas. That is not on. The only people who can produce coal are the miners. They will produce the coal that the country needs.

Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that, if his Department's assumptions about the relationship between money incentives and man-shift productivity are accurate, the effect of the productivity schemes must be to produce accelerated redundancies in the industry which in turn—given that the Department is still prophesying a long-term decline in demand for coal—will mean that a valuable national asset, the labour force in the mining industry, will be dissipated?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend when he says that the men who work in the industry constitute one of the country's most valuable assets. I do not think that I necessarily accept his argument that increased productivity will mean accelerated redundancies. We have been discussing such items as this at the meeting of the Energy Commission this morning. Increased productivity will be of benefit to the mining industry. Even before the incentive scheme was agreed to, the national leaders had been telling the miners that there could be increased productivity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the various forms and amounts of support provided by his Department for new coal technologies, especially the production of coal-based substitute natural gas.

The Department of Energy is supporting participation by the National Coal Board and the British Gas Coporation in the programme of research and development into new coal conversion technologies mounted under the auspices of the International Energy Agency. The amount of support agreed by the Department is as follows: fluidised bed combustion, £3¾ million; coal gasification effluent treatment, £18,000; pyrolysis of coal, £914,000.

Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done by the Government in this important area of coal-based synthetic natural gas? It has great economic potential for the future. The Department of Energy has said that it could be competitive with electricity from conventional stations in the not-too-distant future.

If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the report of the working party from the tripartite agreement when it is published, he will realise that the Department is well aware of the prospects for synthetic natural gas. But the position in this country is special in view of our natural gas supplies from the North Sea.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Agecroft colliery, for example, provides its coal straight to the Agecroft station? Is he further aware that this has proved effective in saving diesel fuel and that the new technologies mean that waste products are also put to good use?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, in the light of his recent statement on the Government's decision to proceed with two further advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations, a new decision will be taken on additional stations once the preliminary design study for possible pressurised water reactor stations is completed.

The Government's policy was set out in my statement of 25th January. To provide us with the option of adopting the pressurised water reactor system in the 1980s, we have endorsed the declared intention of the CEGB to order a PWR station provided design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents have been obtained. In deciding whether to give these consents, I would expect the Government of the day to have regard to safety, economics and operational experience but not to withhold consents on arbitrary grounds.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that varying interpretations have been placed upon his last statement about the Government's intentions for the choice of reactors in the future? Is he saying that, once the AGR stations such as Torness and Heysham and the station in Suffolk have been completed, there will be no further gas-cooled reactor stations in this country?

Such an interpretation would be wholly wrong. As I told the House in the course of supplementary answers to my statement, the generating board does not rule out the possibility of a further AGR before 1982, and the implication that this is simply a way of slithering into a permanent decision on PWRs is entirely without foundation. There was no suggestion of that in my statement, and my statement should not be read in that way. We want to leave a genuine option open to us.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman mislead the House and the country when he said that the PWR could not be started before 1982 and that it would take longer to complete a PWR than an AGR?

I did not mislead the House, because I reported that the generating board was of the opinion that site work could not begin until 1982.

If we have these nuclear stations, of whatever kind, is that not bound to have an adverse effect on the use of coal? Does not my right hon. Friend accept that recent studies have shown that unless this country is capable of exporting 50 million tons of coal a year, whereas now we export hardly any, many mines will be closed as a result of the policy of moving from coal to nuclear power?

If my hon. Friend is supporting what we have said about the need for greater production of coal, I fully agree with him. He will know from last year's Coal Industry Act that we have given the industry the opportunity to move into refineries and other work and that the market for coal is of very great importance. I have said many times that I believe that our energy future rests upon coal, but we do not see how on coal alone it is possible to meet the anticipated needs or demand for energy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) tabled this Question is reflected in the total uncertainty in the industry as to precisely what his statement meant in terms of the PWR? Since his answer today has been merely a high-speed repetition of some of the more ambiguous parts of that question and answer session, will he now answer this question? Does the statement on the PWR indicate whether or not there is a residual policy decision still remaining with the Government, leaving aside the obvious concerns about technical and safety aspects?

Of course there is a decision. The decision will be taken by the Government of the day in due time. There was no suggestion—quite the opposite—in my statement that we have decided to proceed with an order or even a letter of intent. In fact, those who claim that there is uncertainty are disappointed that the Government did not decide to shift at once to a full range of PWR orders. Having failed to persuade the Government, or even the customer, that that was right, they are now saying that there is uncertainty. There is no uncertainty. If I have repeated what I said on 25th January, it is because that is the Government's policy—that the decision should be made in due time and we wish to have an option for the PWR. However, we fell short of placing an order for it, and I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about what we have decided.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what efforts he is making to secure export markets for British coal; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) on 3rd February 1978.

Is the Minister aware that the Green Paper on energy policy, which was published today, does not appear to refer to the export of coal? Is my failure to spot this subject in the report because I have not had time to read it properly, or is it that the Government do not care about it?

If the hon. Gentleman had been aware of the debates we have had about the potential for exporting coal to Europe, he would not have made that statement. In a recent debate, one of my hon. Friends said that more than 50 million tons of coal was coming into the EEC from third countries, and he expressed the view that we should get a share of that trade. That is the Government's policy, and we should try to do as well as we can. In this respect, increased productivity will strengthen our position.

We are grateful to the Government for their efforts so far, and we acknowledge that some modest efforts have been made by the EEC to promote the indigenous industry. Can we be sure, however, that the Government will take a further initiative this year to draw the attention of the Community to the need to maintain a viable coal industry in Western Europe?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is worth noting that we provide the cheapest coal in the EEC, and that factor should be taken into account.

Since the Minister agrees that Europe is one of the best potential export markets for coal, does he not also agree that the belligerent attitude of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State towards the EEC has done more harm than good to our campaign for exports?

The hon. Member is inaccurate. I have been attending meetings with my right hon. Friend, and very good meetings they have been. There has been an appreciation in the Community of the danger that unless we look into the question of a coal policy we might forget what happened in 1973–74. I believe that the House will expect the Government to keep reminding Europe that what happened at that time cannot be allowed to happen again. The coal industry is an important energy resource for Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the cost of heating a three-bedroom semi-detached house, using electricity, oil, gas and solid fuel, respectively.

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Since all houses, particularly those in the public and housing association sectors, should have more than one form of heating system, will the Minister get his Department to liaise with the Department of the Environment in order to get much-needed policies on this subject off the ground?

Yes, we are already doing that. The hon. Member raises a significant point. Too many houses in this country have no choice of fuel as they have a one-fuel system. This is principally a matter for the Department of the Environment, and we talk to that Department about it. The matter was discussed at some length in the Energy Commission this morning.

Will my hon. Friend take into account that where the one system in use in houses happens to be electricity it proves to be very costly to the tenants of those houses? Will he, therefore, look into the problem to try to help those people more than ever, because during the cold winter months their bills will go up to £90 and £100 a quarter?

These are principally matters for the Department of the Environment and local authorities, but may I deal with my hon. Friend's specific point by saying that this was the reason why we introduced the electricity discount scheme.

Reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), particularly in view of the recent extremely bad weather, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that the average household, particularly in conditions such as we have experienced in the past month, likes an open fireplace? Will he liaise with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to try to encourage this form of building to be resumed?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on his progress to date in implementing the EEC policy to reduce refinery capacity; and if he will indicate what discussions he has had with the unions and the oil companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the European Commission concerning the establishment of guidelines and proposed penalties restricting the expansion of oil refinery capacity; and if he will make a statement.

As I have already told the House, there is no question of Her Majesty's Government encouraging refineries to close in the United Kingdom. I have been asked in the European Energy Council to consider a proposal by the EEC Commission that there should be consultations within the Community on any new refinery projects that come forward. I have said that I will give my response in the light of the tripartite consultations with management and unions in the refining industry. The first of these meetings was held on 24th January.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. Is he aware of the proposals to expand both refinery and installation capacity in the United Kingdom? Is it not true that these proposals conflict with the EEC proposals to reduce refinery capacity and that this must create a great deal of confusion and doubt in the minds of workers in existing jobs and for potential jobs? What initiative can the Secretary of State take, and what kind of dialogue will he initiate on this problem area?

The existing projects to which the hon. Gentleman refers are longstanding projects which do not require authorisation from me under present legislation. Some of them are to develop the capacity of cracking, a secondary capacity which we need anyway. I am engaged in discussions with the Community but I am not prepared to see decisions about our own refineries taken elsewhere. I am having discussions with the oil companies and unions here. I have asked Commissioner Brunner to come and see me in London so that we can make it clear that we regard this as an essential interest of the United Kingdom.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the autumn of 1976 the debates upon the Cromarty Petroleum Bill indicated that the House was most anxious that any United Kingdom refining policy should be subject to debate and decision here? Therefore, will he say whether it is his Department's view that under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome the Commission has autonomous power and authority to ban scientific refinery aids and more general regional aids? If that be so, will he leave the Commission under no illusion that the House believes that those are responsibilities that properly belong here?

I am not qualified to give a legal opinion on the interpretation of the Treaty. However, I telephoned Commissioner Brunner on the morning when the Energy Committee of officials met to indicate the gravity with which the United Kingdom regarded proposals that might involve directives or even voluntary guidelines backed up by sanctions, which had appeared in Le Monde as a story as to what they had in mind. I have asked Commissioner Brunner to come and see me, and I have asked for the matter to be referred to the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that at least in one part of the United Kingdom, in my constituency, there will be universal delight if he does not proceed with encouraging oil refineries to be built in a place where there is already too great a concentration of oil, gas and chemical storage? Will he confirm that the Commission has been concerned about the preposterous proposal to build two oil refineries on Canvey Island, where there is already an endangered community?

Whatever the merits of refineries in general or on particular sites, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the decisions should be taken in the United Kingdom by Ministers answerable to the House of Commons. It would not be sensible to defend a transfer of crucial responsibilities elsewhere because of local interests in this matter, nor would it follow that that would be the result. This is too big a subject to allow it to be influenced by considerations which are best dealt with within our own procedures at home.

If it is correct that this is the new policy being flown around the Common Market, it is another lurch into the madness of the EEC. Will my right hon. Friend now answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who said—I am paraphrasing him—"Stand up for Britain against the rest of the Common Market on this matter"?

I hope that I do not need to be reminded of my duties in this respect. If my hon. Friend reads my main reply and my answers to supplementary questions, he will see that there is no doubt that I have made the position clear in letters and telephone calls to those concerned.

As refining policy is closely linked with the amount of oil exported, and as the BNOC has an advisory role vis-à-vis the Government, will the Secretary of State tell us what advice he has received from BNOC on the amount of oil which we export?

BNOC attended the tripartite meeting, and will attend the next one, as one of the oil companies concerned with our policy on domestic refining and the export of oil. BNOC is not in the refinery business, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is involved in discussions with the oil companies about it. But this concerns the export policy on oil, and the House knows that the Government's view is that up to two-thirds should be refined in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether gas savings stamps are available in all regions of the British Gas Corporation.

Gas savings stamps are already available in 11 of the 12 regions of the British Gas Corporation and will be available in the twelfth from April 1978.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be most welcome in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the rest of Yorkshire? Will he say what publicity NEGAS will undertake on this new service, which has been long awaited by my constituents and others, so that they may be fully aware of its availability?

I recognise my hon. Friend's long attention to this matter on behalf of his constituents. I am not aware of the detailed arrangements which NEGAS no doubt has in hand, but I will draw to the attention of NEGAS my hon. Friend's remarks.

On the subject of stamps, is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office has sent out what are known as first-day covers setting out a complete energy policy for the country—and a very good one? Has my hon. Friend studied it?

Yes, I have. I regret that there was not a fifth stamp devoted to energy conservation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report progress on the programme to assess the feasibility of power generation from waves.

The research and development programme on wave energy, announced in April 1976, is making good progress and results already obtained enabled the Department to increase it in April 1977. The programme now stands at £2½ million and will run to October 1978. Further results are expected shortly and will show what further work should be undertaken.

Will the Minister confirm that wave power offers the most interesting potential of the renewable energy sources? As we still have a world lead on the research and development of wave power, will he give an assurance that we shall not drag our feet on this but will move ahead as quickly as we can to full prototype production if and when it becomes possible?

Yes, Sir. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall not drag our feet. However, I should point out that when we are talking about renewable sources of energy we are talking about very expensive sources of energy. Bearing that in mind, we certainly will pursue the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Is my hon. Friend aware that after three decades of effort, and the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds on research, nuclear power is giving us only 3 per cent. of our total energy? Does he agree that if a fraction of that effort were put into wave power we could get a much better return on our money?

We have already told the House that we think wave power has amazing potential. It is difficult to assess the cost at present. I have been told that a figure of three times the present cost of nuclear generation appears to be possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that there is no conflict in the British National Oil Corporation's dual role of integrated oil company and supervisory agency.

The Corporation is not a supervisory agency.

Is it not a fact that BNOC's growing urge to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds is already putting Britain's reputation for commercial integrity at risk? Is it not also the case that a number of oil companies are reconsidering their involvement in the North Sea, in the light of the fact that their applications to the Department for, for example, a farm-out on a licence are held up while BNOC lets it be known unofficially that it would like a carried interest in that licence?

There is no evidence of any such urge as the hon. Gentleman described, and I can positively deny his last remark.

Are not our national oil arrangements now immeasurably superior to the fecklessness of those adopted by the Conservative Government? Is not this revealed by the fact that some blocks licensed in the fourth round have not yet been drilled, contrary to claims by Opposition spokesmen?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that it is certainly true that the drilling we had hoped to take place in the fifth round has in no way started properly, not because matters have not been fixed up between the Department and the companies but because the drilling going on —and it is a high level of drilling—is still on the fourth round.

Does the Minister understand that the dual role of BNOC as an oil company and his confidant results in its being regarded as a vague and sinister body? Does he not fully understand that?

If there is any misunderstanding or confusion, it is in the minds of Members of the Opposition. BNOC is a State oil corporation and enjoys the same relationship with its Government as any other State oil corporation does. It is a valid position. BNOC has no regulatory or supervisory function. It is entirely an adviser to the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of his answers, we know that BNOC has an advisory function and that it is expanding that function into a controlling position in the development of the North Sea? Is he satisfied that the Department is not, because of staff problems as much as anything else, losing a measure of control over activities in the North Sea?

What the hon. Gentleman has said is highly mischievous, as are several of his speeches. There is no question of BNOC's taking over any of the statutory functions of the Secretary of State or any functions of the Department. BNOC's function is advisory to the Secretary of State—no more and no less.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the Minister's thoroughly unsatisfactory reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the names of the new generating plants now under construction; what kinds of fuel are to be used; what is the capacity in each case; and if he will make a statement on what effect these new plants will have on the amount of coal required for power station consumption.

With permission, I will publish the information relating to England and Wales in the Official Report. Power stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The CEGB expects to have the capacity to burn at least 85 million to 90 million tonnes of coal a year by 1990, and coal will retain its major role in electricity generation. The actual fuelburn in any year will, of course, depend not only on installed capacity but on the actual price and availability of fossil fuels at that time.

Does my hon. Friend realise that because of the lack of a clear-cut Government policy many miners' leaders are wondering whether the increased coal output resulting from the incentive scheme will bring pit closures in its wake? Can he give a guarantee to the National Union of Mineworkers and the industry about the future of coal mining? Does he not think it is time that the Government had a national fuel plan so that the chairmen of the energy producing industries could come together and discuss the matter in a co-ordinated way instead of objecting to each others' policies?

On the assumptions in the reference case of the Department's published forecast, coalburn will increase over the next decade. Therefore, that to some extent should alleviate my hon. Friend's anxieties. As for coal's prospects, last year we passed the Coal Industry Act and very shortly I shall be publishing the report of the working party on coal research and development. If anything, it will illustrate how certain is the future of coal in this country, and it should give some security of purpose to the men who work in the industry.

asked the Minister of State for Overseas Development whether she is satisfied with the proportion of total aid which may be devoted to local costs.

Not entirely, Sir. The proportion of our bilateral aid which may be made available for local costs varies from country to country, and in some cases may even be 100 per cent. But in other cases the need to protect British exports and jobs, which of course we must recognise, may conflict with the objectives of our rural development policies.

Notwithstanding that reply, does the right hon. Lady agree with the comment in the recently published Jolly Report that we have underemphasised the importance of small-scale rural development and have in consequence allocated insufficient foreign exchange to meet local cost constraints?

That can be so in certain countries. The proportion permitted for local costs varies very much. There are certain countries in which there is no problem because we can cover 100 per cent. of local costs, but there are countries where there can be some conflict. We are working further on this, and I hope that we shall be able to find a solution by which in countries that particularly need the small rural development type of project we shall be able to find more local costs.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that she could lay down some clear criteria on the balance of aid? Although British industry should get some benefit from our aid programmes, it does the reputation of aid programmes in some Third world countries no good if most of the money seems to be going outside the country concerned.

That is so only in one or two countries where the proportion of local costs that we may at present allocate is small. For the most part, there is no problem. It can be a problem in, for example, India, where, in particular, I hope we shall be able to make further progress.

asked the Minister of State for Overseas Development what commitments have been entered into with Third world countries for the development of wind power by her Department.

We have so far supported through the aid programme a limited amount of research in the United Kingdom and developing countries in wind power, and hope to encourage more. I will, with permission, circulate details of my Department's current and proposed projects in the Official Report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of wind power is particularly suitable in the context of rural development?

Clearly it can be, and it is one of the matters we are examining in many of the development projects that we support.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much of the United Kingdom current overseas aid programme for Guatemala and Nicaragua is paid direct to Her Majesty's Government and how much is channelled through international institutions.

Our bilateral assistance to Guatemala this year will cost about £8,000 and is for training Guatemalans here. We expect to spend £195,000 on our bilateral aid programme in Nicaragua, almost all of this being for technical co-operation in the fields of technician training and forestry redevelopment, and training of Nicaraguans in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot identify separately the comparatively small British contribution to the assistance which these countries receive from multilateral institutions.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department is prepared to use the leverage indicated by the figures he has just given to bring to bear pressure on the Governments of both those countries at least to desist from the most ferociously anti-democratic character of many of their practices, particularly in the case of Guatemala, which appears to be singularly determined to act against British interests?

The question of leverage can be considered only if one has a substantial aid programme. In these circumstances, although I am fully aware of the human rights problems in both countries, I think that our modest technical co-operation programme is fully justified on developmental grounds. But human rights matters are always taken into account and are very seriously considered.

Is the Minister aware that the concern on this matter is fully shared on the Opposition Benches, with particular reference to the loathsome and corrupt regime in Nicaragua?

I am aware of the concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly taken into account. But in the circumstances that we are now discussing our aid programme is very small. It is a modest technical co-operation programme which, as I have said, is fully justified on developmental grounds.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although £8,000 is a small enough sum of money, and although we are all in favour of co-operation, given that the Guatemalans are requiring us to keep a military force in Belize, many people believe that giving any aid is open to question?

Bilateral assistance is only £8,000 this year and that sum is used for training Guatemalans here. I cannot anticipate what might result from the dispute between Guatemala and Belize. We take these matters seriously. The question of human rights is never far from our minds.

Can the Minister give a clearer answer? Since Guatemala has a claim on Belize, and since we have an overwhelmingly important duty to maintain the territorial integrity of Belize, is it not wrong to give any assistance to Guatemala until a proper settlement has been reached?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. This is part of a long-standing agreement and involves a modest sum. I accept hon. Members' concern about the position of Belize, but I cannot anticipate what needs to be done in the circumstances of a settlement of the dispute. This is a long-standing arrangement for a small technical programme and the money is used exclusively for the training of Guatemalans in this country.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development how much will be left in the ODM aid programme for India after the supply of the British-built ships.

The ships project in 1977–78 would represent under one-fifth of the aid available to India this year, about £25 million out of £140 million. The balance of a further £25 million is likely to be equally divided between 1978–79 and 1979–80 and would therefore represent a much lower proportion of aid available in those years.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who have been in India recently will be glad to hear that so small a proportion is involved because we have heard of the intense irritation felt by the Indians at having to buy ships that they do not want at a price that they think is too high? Is it not far better, in the case of the Indian sub-continent in particular, for aid programmes to be used to fund the rural infrastructure and for education projects on a small scale? Does my right hon. Friend accept the conclusions of the Jolly Report in this respect?

It would be infinitely better if the British and Indian Governments could successfully identify projects which could be devoted more to the rural sector. I have every hope that this will happen. Following my discussions earlier this year, I hope that we shall be able to identify large-scale projects dealing, for example, with fertiliser plants, mobile health clinics and power plants to make possible the irrigation of rural areas. This is our intention. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I think that it depends upon which people in India he talked to.

Is the principle under which the Minister acts that we shall provide this aid because if we do not someone else will? Will she follow that principle in other cases—for example, in the case of arms for Chile?

We regard the aid programme to India as our most important bilateral project because India is the largest and poorest country. We want to be able to maintain the level of our aid to India. We concluded the arrangement for ships at a time when we hoped to identify for future years projects that were more keenly geared to rural development policy.

As it is clear from the 1975 White Paper that the Government's policy is to concentrate aid programmes on needy and less developed countries and on the poorer people, surely it is a misuse of our bilateral aid programme to India to spend so much of that money on subsidising the construction of ships to sell to India when we should be helping those who are really in need. Does not that contradict the Government's aid programme?

I must correct the hon. Member's impression. The aid is not being used to subsidise the ships. There will be a tiny element of the shipbuilding intervention fund for that. The Indians need ships. They are a gift which comes out of the aid programme.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she is satisfied with the balance of the United Kingdom aid programme as between bilateral aid, multilateral aid, technical co-operation and capital investment; and if she will make a statement about the forthcoming period to 1981–82.

Broadly, yes. But we have yet to consider what the balance should be over the next four years within the new planning totals recently announced by the Government.

Will the Minister give a higher priority than hitherto to the valuable aspect of technical co-operation? Will he recognise the role that can be played by private capital investment in suitable projects overseas? Will he do more about joint funding with non-governmental organisations as this is an effective way of getting money to those who are in greatest need?

Joint funding figures prominently in the work of the Department. We are constantly considering how best to achieve a combination of our resources and private capital. Technical co-operation also figures prominently in our work. Of the 73 per cent. of the total of our aid programme that went in bilateral aid, 25 per cent. went in technical co-operation.

Will the Minister consider the urgent if not immediate need for aid to the Somalis, who, so far as I know, are being more or less ignored? Can we help them in any way?

The matter is under review.

Now that we are getting out of our financial difficulties, will my hon. Friend seek to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an increased contribution to overseas aid in the years ahead?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will be the first to welcome the fact that the importance of overseas aid was recognised in the recent public expenditure White Paper. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will ensure that her voice is heard.

Is it right that we should use money which could be more properly used in Commonwealth countries to give aid to detestable regimes such as that in Vietnam?

That is a totally different question.

Will the Minister look at the loans element in the aid programme? If he does, he will see that we are lending money to Iran interest-free when it must be well known that Iran is in a much better position to lend money to us than we are to them.

I shall certainly consider that. If the hon. Member has any particular point to make, I hope that he will write to me.

In the context of the Lomé Convention and the European aid programme, can the Minister tell the House how large he would like to see the aid programme in 1982 in comparison with this year?

That is a totally different question that must be subject to further consideration.