asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring forward proposals for further coal-fired power stations.

My right hon. Friend's approval has not been sought for any coal-fired station beyond Drax B. The timing of future orders will depend on many factors including the growth of electricity demand.

Does my hon. Friend realise that we are exhorting miners to increase production and efficiency but that we are giving them no guarantee that the coal they produce will not be left on the floor at the top of the pit instead of being used in coal-fired stations? Is it not time that we planned to build more coal-fired stations so that we could guarantee that the coal produced by the miners would be consumed?

The CEGB's plan up to the early 1990s will provide a capacity to burn 85 million or 90 million tonnes of coal. On the question of future markets for coal, we are looking closely at the possibilities for exports. My hon. Friend asked about new power stations, but no application has been made for new capital investment.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to examine the Health and Safety Commission's report indicating 1·8 deaths for every 1,000 megawatts of power produced by coal compared with only 0·25 deaths with nuclear power? Should he not therefore accept a recommendation for more nuclear power stations rather than more coal-fired power stations?

I believe that the view the hon. Member is advancing would command only minority support throughout the House. We have always said that it would be a great mistake for this country to be dependent on one source of energy.

Has my hon. Friend seen the recent article in The Times to the effect that if no more coal-fired power stations—apart from Drax B—are built by the early 1980s the power produced by coal will fall from 65 per cent. to 51 per cent. of the total, and that that will be disastrous for the mining industry at a time when it is producing a little more coal?

I can only repeat that coal-burning capacity will be 85 million to 90 million tonnes. We are of course looking at other uses for coal and we expect to produce a report on that. British coal is the cheapest in the Common Market.

Are there not clear indications that even Drax B could be out of date long before it is completed since the trend will be increasingly towards converting coal into oil and gas in order to burn it more efficiently?

The CEGB was quite satisfied with the cost of generating electricity by burning coal. As for future developments, I agree with the hon. Member that coal is a very valuable raw material.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to amend Section 25 of the Gas Act 1972 in order to impose an obligation upon gas boards to notify customers individually in advance of any changes in tariff structure.

No. I am satisfied that the present provision is appropriate and that it is reasonably interpreted by the British Gas Corporation.

Is the Minister aware that one of my constituents who has business premises in North-West London was placed on the domestic rather than the commercial heating tariff without any consultation with him or personal notification to him? Since the North Thames Gas Board is now quoting the 1972 Act in defence of its arbitrary behaviour, is it not time that the Act was suitably amended so that the board's customers could be treated with more courtesy and consideration in such matters in future?

I am not aware of the specific case. Decisions about tariffs and the appropriate tariff for consumers are normally for boards within their day-to-day management. If the hon. Member is dissatisfied with some aspects of the handling of the case he has mentioned, and if he writes to me about it, I will have it looked at.

If the Minister cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request to notify customers in advance, will he at least undertake on behalf of the Government to notify the chairman of the British Gas Corporation when prices are changed, because on the last occasion it was done in an arbitrary manner without reference to him?

I did not say that customers were not notified in advance. Customers are notified in advance, as the hon. Gentleman should know.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposed change in the shareholding and the management of the National Nuclear Corporation.

Following my statement on thermal nuclear policy on 25th January, I shall want to be sure that the nuclear industry has the organisation and management which it needs to implement the Government's decisions. I have no proposals to announce yet.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that between 1972 and 1973 the Select Committee on Science and Technology was very critical of the arrangement under which the General Electric Company was given an artificially dominant position in the National Nuclear Corporation? Is he further aware that the Select Committee also predicted the difficulties that would arise if the General Electric Company decided to withdraw? Has that situation not arrived? In view of the considerable amount of public capital involved, should not a statement be made fairly soon?

I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend makes. Following the announcement of policy that I made in January, certain industrial and management implications will follow. The GEC has indicated to me that it wishes to withdraw from the supervisory management position.

Can the Secretary of State say whether legislation will be required to change the balance of holdings in the Corporation? If so, will he start negotiations with the absent Liberal Party Members to make sure that that legislation will be acceptable to the House?

I did not make any reference to the shareholdings; I referred to the supervisory contract. Therefore, perhaps the other question does not arise.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, as it seems clear now that the policy has been announced and there are to be changes in the structure, it is a matter of some urgency that the new structure should be arrived at as soon as possible so that the policy can be implemented without delay? Will he contribute to that effort?

That is a most helpful supplementary question. The organisation must fit in with the decision made. Therefore, there is urgency in the matter. On the other hand, in these as in other matters. I am trying to proceed by consent.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy in what proportion of collieries have incentive agreements been implemented.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy in what proportion of collieries incentive schemes have been implemented.

The numbers of installation agreements have been steadily increasing and now cover about 80 per cent. of all faces and 75 per cent. of all development drivages.

Can the Minister say by how much coal output has increased as a result of the implementation of these schemes?

Yes. There has been an increase in output per man shift of about 1·5 cwt. The National Coal Board expects in this financial year about 1½ million tons more than it would otherwise have had.

Whilst productivity is improving, which is to be welcomed, sales are the real problem. Can the Minister confirm that coking coal, a precious resource which we are still importing, is being put under the boilers in power stations? Would it not be wiser to coke it and stock it for the British Steel Corporation in the hope that there will he at some point an upturn in the future of the steel industry?

It is a fact that the steel industry is in the doldrums. It is a fact that coking coal is being stocked. I do not have any information about it being put into power stations. I share the hon. Gentleman's optimism because, before, when the world took off in its economy in relation to steel, countries all over the world were searching for coking coal. I agree that we should stock it and not lose our nerve.

Can my hon. Friend say whether as a result of the incentive agreements there are any figures nationally to indicate an increase in the number of fatal accidents, in view of the recent remarks made by Mr. Scargill?

Yes; they have doubled.

I have no information that there has been any increase in the number of fatal accidents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a great deal of industrial friction in the Yorkshire coalfield and a possible strike of engine winders because of the degree of implementation of pit industry incentive schemes? Has he made a study of the number of shifts and the amount of coal lost as a result of the application of pit industry incentive schemes?

My hon. Friend may recollect that the last time on which questions were posed in the House about the incentive schemes I said that I thought it was too early to start to make some claims about how they would work and what success they would have. I stick to what I said then. It is far too early to make claims one way or the other as to how they will turn out. The question of negotiating at pit level in relation to the kind of incentive scheme that would be acceptable is a new experience. Therefore, until there is some more experience of the incentive schemes, we shall have to wait to see what the facts are.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to introduce an Electricity Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to lay the Electricity Bill before the House of Commons.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects to introduce the Electricity Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to present a Bill reorganising the electricity supply industry.

I am not now in a positon to introduce legislation this Session for the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry but will publish my proposals as a White Paper. I shall shortly introduce a Bill providing for Drax compensation payments and giving effect to an international agreement on safeguards for nuclear material.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will be sorry for him that his plan for centralising the electricity supply industry has been frustrated by the Lib-Lab pact? Does he agree that previously Ministers have resigned for less than this?

I appreciate the helpful spirit that underlies the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. There have been two years of discussion following the publication of the Plowden Report and a number of changes were made and agreed designed to prevent the kind of centralisation recommended in that report.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, although many of us fundamentally disagree with many of his views, at least we have the benefit of knowing what they are and that his principles are rather greater than those of self-preservation, which guide those on the Liberal Benches, who do not even appear to be here today? Is it his intention to try to introduce some of the bits of the Bill which may be generally acceptable to the House?

In my answer—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to read it—I have made it clear that the shortened Bill will be introduced on Wednesday and published on Thursday. As soon as I can get the full Bill dealing with the reorganisation of the industry published as a White Paper, which I think will be shortly after the Easter Recess, the whole House will have an opportunity of considering the proposals put forward after the two years of discussion that has taken place.

In the deplorable absence of the entire Parliamentary Liberal Party, would not it be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could indicate whether the concept of area power boards, for example, was mentioned by the Liberal Party in any of the discussions, or were its objections so frivolous and so uncomprehending that their publication or otherwise could make no contribution to serious debate on the subject?

I had wide consultations with the Conservative Party and with the Liberal Party about the whole problem of reorganising the industry. As will become clear when the White Paper is published, I took the view that it would be better to have primary legislation, and then the organisational framework could emerge from Statutory Instruments as and when changes were needed. As will appear when the White Paper is published, my Bill provides for Statutory Instruments that would allow power boards or the more decentralised form of organisation which I preferred to that proposed in Plowden, which was for a highly centralised industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that the Bill is not coming forward will cause frustration, disillusionment and a loss of morale within the electricity supply industry, which needs the Bill and has asked for it? Does not he think it remarkable that Liberal Members show so little interest in the electricity supply industry that they are not here today? Does he think that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is skulking in some antediluvian corner, afraid to come out and show himself today?

Without going into the details of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that it would be wrong that a great industry of this kind, the figures of which I have given, should be frozen permanently into a pattern that is no longer appropriate. As the House will see when the White Paper is published, there are certain provisions in the draft Bill with regard to consumers, industrial democracy and the needs of the supplying industry, and there is a special open government clause which I think, when the House sees it, will recommend itself widely among hon. Members generally.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the vast amount of work that has been done on the Bill, which deals largely with administration, it does not reflect much credit on the parliamentary system that it cannot even be discussed here?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The Bill will be published in its entirety together with the draft Statutory Instrument that would have been used to bring it into effect, and the House will then have an opportunity of considering how it wishes to proceed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we regard this as the most tragic outcome of a seriously mismanaged situation for what he had described as an extremely important industry? We are bound to regret the enormous delay which led the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in the position with the Liberal Party that he did. As the right hon. Gentleman referred to us and the wide consultations that he had with us, will he note that they were extremely late consultations, which made it impossible for the Bill to proceed this Session?

With regard to consultation, I thought it wrong to bring to the House a Bill for the industry's reorganisation that had not been through the most detailed and elaborate consultations with the industry. Much of the time occupied since Plowden reported has been spent in seeking and finally obtaining a consensus within the industry. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that before I made my statement in the House last summer there were general consultations. The Bill was then forecast in the Queen's Speech, and the outlines of the proposals have been widely known and understood. I think that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that I was able to give him an absolutely clear assur- ance that the power board solution, one that I know has been of some interest to the Opposition, would be capable of being introduced under the Bill, and that is the case. I have had that checked and confirmed recently.

Will not my right hon. Friend accept that the real reason why the Liberals have been playing truant today and acting awkward over the Bill is to give the impression to those that formerly supported them ouside, and are now voting Tory, that by attacking my right hon. Friend they have been out-manoeuvring the Tories on this matter? Perhaps the best answer to the Liberals is an indication by those in the coalfields and those that work in the electricity industry that they will not support them at the next General Election, and then they will finish without any votes at all.

I think that when the Bill is published with the draft Statutory Instrument as a White Paper in about two weeks' time everyone in the industry and throughout the country, including consumers and hon. Members, will have an opportunity of judging for themselves the merits of the proposals. The Government are committed to the proposals, which were very carefully considered by them after the consultations with the industry. I believe them to be good proposals that will recommend themselves to those who look at them for the first time.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy, in view of overcapacity, whether he still requires four ethylene crackers based on North Sea natural gas liquid feedstock by 1985; and when he intends to make a further statement on the North Sea gathering pipelines.

The first part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I cannot make a general statement on gas gathering before I have studied the final report of Gas Gathering Pipelines (North Sea) Ltd., which is due to be submitted to me at the end of this month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the other Departments involved to ensure that there is no waste of financial resources here? Will he bear in mind that it is not much use making available the resources from the North Sea if the chemical industry is not in a position to use them? Will the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied that inflation does not make it impractical to go ahead with the pipeline, and thereby lose a great deal of the financial resources which could be used for other purposes?

The answer to the first two parts of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "Yes". I have noted the hon. Gentleman's other point.

Will the Government take steps to ensure that the information contained in the Williams and Mertz report is kept up to date constantly in a situation which changes all the time?

Yes, Sir; but when it is published it will be revised to remove commercially confidential information.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what sum of money the Government will make available to the Central Electricity Generating Board in respect of compensation for the early ordering of Drax B; and if he will now present a Bill to effect this.

I have informed the Chairman of the CEGB that the Government are prepared to seek parliamentary authority for payments up to a cumulative maximum figure of £50 million.

As the right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he intended to introduce the Bill tomorrow, I can scarcely complain about the delay, but would not it have been better for the House to have an opportunity to discuss earlier the way in which the order for Drax B was placed? It was done in a most controversial way and was a peremptory interference with the judgment of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

As I made the statement, I think, last July, it would be difficult to complain that there had not been adequate opportunity, through Supply Day debates or in other ways, for the matter to be raised. In the event, we followed the same procedure as the previous Government followed in respect of Ince B. I do not think that it makes sense for the supplying industry, in this case the Generating Board, to plan its own demand without any regard to whether there will be a manufacturing industry able to meet that demand. One cannot cope with severe fluctuations of this kind. I believe that the decision was right when I announced it. There has been plenty of time to discuss it. The Bill will come forward and the House will be able to reach a judgment on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that his Department is making a sufficiently large allowance for energy savings in its forecasts of final energy consumption by the end of the century.

The Department's forecasts contained in the recent Green Paper allow for a 24 per cent. reduction in the final demand for energy below the level it might otherwise have reached by the end of the century. This provides for a reduction in primary energy demand of about 100 million tons of coal equivalent and includes the effect of higher fuel prices as well as Government action. I am satisfied that this represents a reasonable allowance on the basis of present knowledge.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his Department's forecasters are also looking at the low energy scenario put forward by the International Institute for Environment and Development, which strongly suggests that the previous one-to-one relationship between economic growth and energy growth is no longer a reliable guide to future policy?

Yes, Sir. I can confirm not only that we are looking at it but that we are having discussions with the institute and others who are producing low energy scenarios. It is right and proper that we should be doing so. However, we do not accept all that has been contained in preliminary notices about that report, as in some newspaper reports published a little while ago.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the period from 1960 to 1976 the consumption of energy in the domestic sector was virtually static, according to the consultation document, despite the fact that standards have increased and we have 2½ million extra domestic dwellings? Will he take this into account when making calculations about increased demand and rising standards of living?

Yes. We take such facts into account. One of the fundamental differences between our forecasting and that contained in some of the other documents is that we base our forecasts on trends whereas some of the other studies have been based on single years.

What account has the Department taken in its estimates of possible heat and power schemes?

We are expecting a full report on the potential of combined heat and power schemes. We had a preliminary report last year. This will be updated and published. I hope, in the not too distant future, in much greater detail. We shall then assess the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

I meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board frequently, most recently last Wednesday.

I thank the Minister for his reply. We are anxious that the posi- tive side of the productivity schemes now being worked should be shown. Now that these are starting to move in the right direction, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has received assurances from the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the marketing policy. We are anxious that he should be actively concerned within the Commission itself and that Ministers should try to support the British coal industry by replacing East European imports by United Kingdom produced coal.

I am well aware of this, and at all the recent Energy Councils I have been urging this very strongly. I have the figures for subsidies in the EEC, and the House might like to hear them. For every ton of coal produced in Britain there is a subsidy of 50p. For every ton of coal produced in Germany there is a subsidy of £2·60. For every ton of coal produced in France there is a subsidy of £13·30. For every ton of coal produced in Belgium there is a subsidy of £15·80. Therefore, British coal is without doubt produced in the most efficient circumstances in the whole of the Common Market, and I have urged this most strongly at all the meetings that I have attended. I raised it again with the Commission and with the current President in office of the Council of Ministers, Ivan Nørgaard, when I went to Copenhagen recently.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the effects on the Scottish coal industry of the decision to go ahead with the advanced gas-cooled reactor at Torness? Can he still guarantee a minimum coal-burn of 8 million tons per year which will help to ensure a viable future for the Scottish coalfield, including pits such as Polmaise Colliery in my constituency?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not the Minister responsible for the generation industry in Scotland, which is a power board—the South of Scotland Electricity Board—responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary negotiated a coalburn agreement between the National Coal Board and the SSEB last year and the Government are committed to the levels of assistance then announced.

In view of the increased production, productivity and efficiency of British mines compared with our European counterparts, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the National Coal Board has all the financial resources to invest to maintain its efficiency in the future and to ensure that alternative uses for coal can be considered in view of the increased supply?

At current prices the "Plan for Coal" represents an investment programme costing £4·04 billion. As for other uses for coal apart from European markets and coalburn in the United Kingdom, which I am seeking to stimulate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is responsible for a study which will be reporting to me in the next few days, and subsequently in the House, on advanced methods of using coal—fluidised bed burning, liquefication, and other conversion technologies—which I believe will secure for the industry an outlet that we shall badly need. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

As there is general agreement on both sides of the House that the major problem facing the coal industry is that of marketing the production, which we hope to see increased, and as the facts he has given us about the European situation show what an overwhelmingly strong case we have in the Commission, how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that we have failed to get any Community agreement? Is it a measure of the lack of good will felt towards this Government by the Governments of the other major States?

If the hon. Gentleman reflects for a moment on his supplementary question he will realise that there is a conflict of interest between producers and consumers. That exists here and in the Community and elsewhere. It is part of our purpose that we should get a coal-burn scheme that shifts not only from oil to coal, which is obviously beneficial, but from imported to indigenous fuels. The discussions we are having and pressing strongly are designed to meet that need. The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the fact that other countries defend their national interests within the Community with the same zest and zeal that I seek to show.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the tonnage of crude oil brought ashore from the North Sea oilfields during the latest six months for which figures are available; and what was the figure for the previous six months.

Nearly 21 million tonnes of United Kingdom Continental Shelf crude oil were brought ashore during the six months ending January 1978. This compares with about 18 million tonnes during the previous six months.

I am grateful for that answer. When does my right hon. Friend expect the North Sea fields to peak in terms of deliveries? What percentage of our total energy consumption at that time will that peak output represent?

That is an easy question. We hope to reach self-sufficiency in the calendar year 1980 and that we shall sustain self-sufficiency right through the 1980s. By how much we will be in excess of self-sufficiency—that is about 100 million tonnes—it is difficult to say, but it might be about as much as 20 million tonnes, 30 million tonnes, or even 40 million tonnes. It is very difficult to make a decision about the 1990s.

The Minister has expressed concern about the level of exports of North Sea oil. Is he satisfied that these are in the right sort of parameters?

No. We hoped that we should try to find up to two-thirds in the United Kingdom. At present the figure is running, over the past 12 months, at 58 per cent. That is still within the phrase "up to two-thirds", but "up to two-thirds "means" up to two-thirds". It is largely a matter of the nature of the market. The market for low sulphur oil, such as we have in the United Kingdom, is extremely attractive and it is therefore very difficult to influence the position of exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will institute an investigation of the likely yield to the National Oil Account from North Sea oilfields in the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981; and whether he will publish the results in the Official Report.

The latest forecasts of yield from royalties on North Sea oil and gas were set out in the answer by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 21st November 1977.

Subsequent to that, to what extent are the newspaper reports correct that the yields to the National Oil Account are proving much less, thanks to increased tax allowances being claimed by the oil companies? Is it, for example, correct to say that the yield to the National Oil Account this year will be less than the financial losses of the British Steel Corporation?

As I do not know the answer to either of those questions, I cannot answer one way or the other to either. I would merely say to the hon. Gentleman that we have to accept that we are still in the development phase in the North Sea and the oil companies rightly deserve the tax allowances that we have given to them in order to develop the fields commercially and properly. It may mean that there will be some delay in gathering in the tax moneys, but the figure of £5 billion of tax collection up to 1982 remains as confirmed in the reply given on 21st November 1977.

Is it not the case that there could be some serious disadvantages as a result of the most unsatisfactory arrangements made during the fourth round licensing for which the Tory Government were responsible and that some blocks negotiated in that round have still not been developed as a result of those unsatisfactory arrangements?

That is very true. It will be seen from the hand-back of the fourth round blocks which we got only in the last week or so that we have not had the uptake that we should have had. We expect the fifth round to be much more successful than that.

Will the Minister clarify the point that he made just now when he quoted the figure of £5 billion? I think he said 1982, but should he not have said 1980? If he does not know the answer, will he agree that it is now time that a ceiling was put on the amount to which the National Oil Account could grow, so that over a given ceiling the revenue would automatically be transferred to the Treasury?

I should not like to answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question without notice. On the first part, yes, I meant to say 1980. I thought I said 1980, but if I said 1982 I apologise.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the European Economic Community Energy Commissioner.

I expect to meet Dr. Brunner at the next meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers, which is provisionally scheduled for 30th May, and possibly beforehand.

At that meeting, will the Secretary of State take urgent steps to discuss the recent two rounds of the nuclear hearings in Brussels? Once again, the British nuclear industry and the EEC nuclear industry seem to have taken yet another buffeting at the hands of those who are anti-nuclear power. What kind of dialogue can he initiate to ensure that the British nuclear industry gets a well deserved boost, particularly at any future hearings that the EEC Commissioner may decide to hold?

Since the United Kingdom was the first country to adopt a civil nuclear programme, and since we now generate 13 per cent. of our electricity by nuclear power—which will rise to 20 per cent. when the existing advanced gas-cooled reactor stations are completed, and to 25 per cent. beyond that—and since we are the third country in the world in installed capacity and electricity generated by nuclear power, I am not very concerned at criticism made elsewhere.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commissioner and other Energy Ministers of the European Community, will he impress on them that this country can produce power, and particularly coal, cheaper than any other member of the Community? Will he try to ensure that the other member States stop importing coal from elsewhere and start to buy British coal?

I have made that point most robustly, and so has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, at Council meetings. I have also proposed that Council meetings should be held in public so that people may know what is said by Ministers. Were the transcripts to be made available, the argument that my hon. Friend and I have put forward would be quite clearly seen to be on the record. I attach the greatest possible importance to the point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will take steps to raise in the European Council of Ministers (Energy) Community—assisted home insulation schemes.

A draft EEC directive on the modernisation of existing buildings has already been proposed by the EEC Commission. This proposal is being revised in the light of additional data provided by member States. Substantive discussions will be initiated as soon as this is done.

Will the Minister agree that the European Commission has been actively pressing the United Kingdom Government to implement the scheme which was recently approved by the European Parliament, and has expressed some concern about what it sees as unreasonable delay? Will he also confirm that there are no disadvantages to the United Kingdom is adopting this aproach?

As yet, there have been only preliminary considerations in the Council working party, and in no sense is it true to say that there is a finally agreed detailed scheme. While we support the aims of the scheme—that is, more houses insulated and more jobs created—we have questioned some of the figures behind some of the arguments. That is why the detailed work is now going on. But in no sense, especially in view of my right hon. Friend's statement of 12th December, can we be accused of wanting to delay insulating more houses in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy for how long the encouragement and promotion of energy conservation measures within existing housing have been under general consideration by the Government, and when he expects to arrive at conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a report on the progress achieved on the energy conservation programme.

The Government's first energy conservation measures were announced in this House on 9th December 1974. The White Paper of July 1976, Cmnd. 6575, announced further action and more measures were announced on 26th September 1977. The programme announced on 12th December 1977 substantially strengthened the Government's policy. As my right hon. Friend made clear last December, our energy conservation programme is a continuing one, and we shall bring forward further measures as and when necessary.

Why are the Government taking so long in applying the energy conservation measures to the private sector of housing? With specific regard to the Department of the Environment's building regulations affecting the design of the outside shell of buildings, what role is the Department playing in the drawing up of new building regulations concerning the size of the area of windows in these buildings, as there is an input of heat and a saving of energy and lighting through the use of glass windows?

Within the terms of the 1976 White Paper, it is possible now to obtain assistance to insulate houses in the private sector. I wish that Conservative Members, when pressing us to get on with these things, would remind their right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who are continually pressing us to reduce public expenditure, that they should decide which way they would like it to be.

Does not the Minister yet appreciate that energy conservation can reduce public expenditure, because it produces savings in public expenditure? How can the Minister be taken seriously with his energy conservation programme until he sets some specific target over a specific timescale?

The Government are well aware of the advantages of public expenditure. What I am saying is that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. It is already clear that anyone who insulates his own house will save his own money, and be paid back very quickly, whether he lives in a council house or in a private house.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the improvement in the official aid programme in order to reach the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

Overseas aid is now planned as the fastest growing public expenditure programme, and I hope we shall move faster towards the target as a result. In 1976, official development assistance amounted to 0.38 per cent. of gross national product. It is too soon to give a figure for 1977.

In view of the improvement in our national finances, will my right hon. Friend seek to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase overseas aid in his Budget Statement? Would it not be better to be spending more on overseas aid rather than on armaments?

We try to make maximum use, under the volunteer programme and other programmes, of teachers who may assist in the developing countries.

Is the Minister aware that the problem of overseas aid is, alas, not simply one of money? Can she give any indication of any development in the Government's thinking about the support and encouragement which can be given to voluntary organisations working on overseas development matters?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that two years ago we introduced the pound-for-pound scheme, which has been a very helpful stimulus for us and for the voluntary agencies. It is a question of defining projects which are suitable for support. I think it is true to say that we have supported from ODM a very high proportion of the products submitted to us by the voluntary agencies, but I am always anxious that they should identify more of them.

Did my right hon. Friend notice the publication of the figure of our net contribution to the EEC of £337 million? That is a contribution, as she will know, to the richest group of countries in the world. Could she say how near to the target of 0·7 per cent. of gross domestic product we would get if we contributed that £337 million to the poorest countries in the world?

I do not think that that point really arises, because our contribution to European Development Fund funding represents part of our own account to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is all contained within the same total. It is true, of course, that we have been anxiously seeking to persuade our colleagues in the EEC to give greater attention and a higher proportion of their budget to the poorest non-associated countries, as against the associates.

Although the official aid programme has an extremely important role to play in alleviating acute poverty in the world, does the right hon. Lady recognise and accept that it is a question not only of the work of voluntary bodies but of preferential trade policies, private investment, and technical cooperation from the Western world? All these are very important engines of development in the Third world.

Yes, and I am sure that the hon. Member is familiar with some of the remarks that I have made which repeat his sentiments on this matter.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she intends to review the overall commitment of Her Majesty's Government to overseas aid in the light of the increasing trend to protectionism among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

No, Sir. Our overall commitment is firm.

Is it not paradoxical that those of the right hon. Lady's colleagues who are most strident in calling for increased protectionism are among those who are also keenest on increased aid? Does she not agree that there is a clear conflict of objectives here which is bound to become more acute as the worldwide recession deepens?

It is the case that there can be conflicts. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware, as the Select Committee on Overseas Development is aware, that the Government have initiated a study on adjustment assistance, which goes to the kernel of this problem and which I hope will assist us in working out what the policy for the future will be. I hope that the Opposition will be equally interested in working out viable solutions.

Is my right hon. Friend's Department prepared to reconsider Britain's overseas aid commitments in certain respects in view of the intensification of State terrorism by certain Conservative Governments in Latin America?

I think that our polices have taken account of this. If I may, I shall write to my hon. Friend with the details of our full programme in Latin America. He will see that very consciously we do not support regimes of a terrorist character. There are one or two countries in which we seek quite deliberately to assist the very poorest groups—for example, in Paraguay, the Paraguayan Indians. But I think my hon. Friend will find that on the whole our policy meets his requirements.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she is taking to assist the Malawi Government in the commercial development of the United Kingdom-funded Vipyha forestry project.

The commercial exploitation of the plantations is being negotiated between the Malawi Government and potential investors. We have allocated a total of nearly £3 million for their maintenance and further development up to 1981.

Is not it the case that a letter of intent was signed recently by a commercial consortium for the construction of a pulp and paper mill at Vipyha? Will the Minister indicate what are the prospects for commercial participation in this next phase of the development, in addition to the German and Scandinavian interests which have been mentioned already?

The hon. Member is correct. The prospects at the moment are brighter than they have been at any time before. Negotiations last month between the Malawi Government and an international consortium of six firms, one of which was a British firm, resulted in the signing of a letter of intent for a 180,000-ton mill and the establishment of a joint co-ordinating and promotion committee which will try to finalise the arrangements, including finance, for the mill by the end of this year.

My hon. Friend mentioned the sum of £3 million. Will this be over a single year or a number of years, and will he indicate the proportion of total aid which will be given to Malawi of which this sum constitutes a part?

The £3 million is for further development between now and 1981. My recollection is that it is divided roughly equally over the years to 1981. If that proves not to be correct I shall write to my hon. Friend. That figure represents about 12 per cent. of our bilateral capital aid which has been offered to Malawi for the period 1978–81.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she anticipates any further sums of public money will be required to be made available to the Crown Agents in the light of their losses on own account activities.

The deficit remaining after the £90 million grant which we propose to make this financial year relates almost entirely to the Crown Agents' Australian property holdings. Whether further sums will be required will not be known until the financial results of the Crown Agents' disengagement from those investments are clear.

If the Government decide to provide further taxpayers' money for the Crown Agents, will the right hon. Lady make it clear that on the next occasion she will make the announcement in the form of a statement rather than by way of a Written Answer to a Question, so that the House may have an opportunity to put questions to her? Since the Government intend to make the Crown Agents fully accountable to Parliament, when do they intend to legislate on this matter?

On that second question, as soon as we can. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are great difficulties at present pressing upon parliamentary legislation. But it will be done as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the dabbling in English and Continental was among the reasons for some of the losses in the Crown Agents affair? Does she accept that there is an urgent need for an investigation into the sale of English and Continental, which, according to some peeple, was the result of the involvement of Osgoodby, one of the Crown Agents? Did my right hon. Friend and the Treasury give a seal of approval to the transfer of English and Continental?

On that first point, certainly English and Continental, with all the other investments in property and secondary banking during the period up of 1974, was the major contributory cause to the Crown Agents' losses. On the two specific matters which my hon. Friend raised, I cannot give a clear answer at the moment though I am prepared to look into them. But I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that I can take responsibility only for the period before 1970 and after 1974, with a certain interval since then.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about the Government's policy with regard to the writing off of the outstanding official debts of the poorest developing countries.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the recent Trade and Development Board meeting in Geneva.

At the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board meeting earlier this month, I am pleased to report that a significant measure of agreement was reached on two issues of considerable importance in the North-South dialogue. First, in the field of aid policy, we and other developed countries were able to join in an undertaking to seek to adopt measures to adjust the financial terms of past aid, or other equivalent measures, for those poorer and least developed countries facing serious development problems. We are now urgently examining the scope and modalities of any scheme which we might adopt following this undertaking. Second, in the debt field, we reached agreement on four basic concepts on future operations relating to the debt problems of developing countries. Further work in UNCTAD will take account of these common concepts.

If this multilateral progress in UNCTAD and elsewhere gets bogged down, is the right hon. Lady prepared to recommend to her colleagues that the Government should consider proceeding unilaterally on the question of official debt for the poorest developing countries? Can she confirm that, if that were to be the case, she would see that countries with regimes hostile to Britain or tyrannical to their people, such as Uganda and Kampuchea, would be excluded from such a concession?

On the first question, I do not think that this really arises, because my understanding from the TDB meeting in Geneva is that all the developed countries subscribe to the phrase

"We will seek to adopt these measures."

Although the whole House will welcome the results of the conference, does my right hon. Friend agree that countries which have not incurred debts because they did not have the products whereby they could borrow will not be helped by this? Can she say whether she was able to contribute to the progress of the conference in her capacity as Minister in attendance?

I think that the essential factor which arises here is that there is obviously a real inconsistency between giving grants, as we have done for the last three or four years, to the poorer developing countries and at the same time clawing back from them debt repayment and servicing. To the extent that there are countries—there are very few amongst the poorest countries—for which this would not provide advantage, there is plenty of opportunity open within the aid programme to increase our level of aid to them, and we seek to do this within the terms of the White Paper "Aid to the Poorest". The two are quite different.

While strongly supporting the two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), may I ask the Minister for an indication of the time scale that we are discussing? How soon can we expect a more positive statement rather than the vague phrase "seeking to adopt measures"?

I suppose it will not take my colleagues and myself more than a couple of months to determine the modalities of this matter, and thereafter I should be able to report to Parliament on the results.