asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further measures he will introduce to conserve energy.

As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on energy conservation to the House last December, and repeated in the Green Paper on energy policy, we shall bring forward further measures to conserve energy as and when necessary. This year the Government have introduced the energy conservation scheme to encourage savings in industry and commerce, and the Homes Insulation Bill to provide assistance for private householders. The "Save It" campaign is also being continued and developed, including co-operation with the nationalised fuel industries. Our programme is a continuing one and further measures will be introduced as appropriate.

Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Department of Transport on the savings that might come from the electrification of railways? Has he any further plans for new sources of renewable energy which themselves would conserve energy?

We discuss electrification with the Department of Transport and throughout the Government. My right hon. Friend recently published a further statement on our commitments towards the so-called alternative sources of energy. We expect them to make a small but significant contribution to our overall energy supplies by about the end of this century but not a great contribution before then.

Does the Minister recognise that the only method of conserving energy which is not inherently wasteful of efforts and resources is the use of the price mechanism?

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was this Administration which got the fuel industries out of the accumulated deficits which had accrued under the previous Administration.

Has my hon. Friend had any studies carried out on the energy saving aspects of waterborne transport and, if so, has he discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for the Environment with particular reference to improving the Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation?

This is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the British Waterways Board. We have looked at the possible consequences of energy conservation in this area, but I must tell my hon. Friend that energy conservation results alone would not make massive shifts to waterborne transport worth while. There would have to be other considerations and, indeed, there are. On the grounds of energy conservation, it is not really a priority.

As it is generally recognised that the biggest contribution to energy conservation can come from a more efficient use and production of electricity, will the Minister now say when he expects to come forward the working party report on combined heat and power proposals, and what action he proposes to take in the meantime?

I should like to say when the report and proposals are to come forward, but I cannot tell the House that a date has been agreed for the report. It is overdue. I hope that we shall have the report before too long, but I cannot make any commitment until we have seen the working party's recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any firm evidence indicating that it might be possible to increase the proportion of coal burned at power stations in the United Kingdom without directly or indirectly passing on higher costs to the public.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current level of coal-burn by power stations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his proposals to alter the merit order of power stations in favour of more coalburning; and what conversations he has had with the trade unions in the electricity supply industry on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current position of coal stocks at power stations.

Stock levels at power stations and at pithead are high and could increase further. In order to make the greatest possible use of our indigenous resources, I have put in hand with the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board an urgent examination of the potential for burning additional quantities of coal in power stations to displace imported oil and coal. The study, which is still continuing, is being conducted on the basis that there would be no additional cost to the electricity consumer.

I thank the Secretary of State for that relatively full reply, but does not the observation of the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board that

"the significant price advantage that coal has over oil has largely withered away"

No, I reject that, as I made clear in my answer, but the House should appreciate that in the context of energy policy the fuelburn must be a matter for national consideration. On a number of occasions the Central Electricity Generating Board has urged me to tax gas, and I have taken the view that that is not a sensible course for us to pursue. The board accepts that we shall not permit gas-fired power stations to be built. That has been accepted. What does not make sense is to stock coal at home and import it from abroad and to import oil from abroad at a balance of payments cost when coal, which is an indigenous source of energy, is available to us. I believe that this can be done without imposing any increase of prices for the electricity consumer, and I hope that my studies will show that to be so.

Since many of the coal industries in western Europe are now facing difficulties, largely because of the fall-off in demand for blast furnace coke, what help can we expect from the EEC towards solving what I believe will be a temporary problem since this industry will be utterly central to our economic thinking in 10 years' time?

I agree with the last part of that supplementary question: coal is the one resource which we can rely on for 300 years or more, and it would be lunatic to close pits in order to permit imports of coal and oil which may temporarily appear to be cheaper but which will not be available to us. As regards western Europe, the House should know that each individual German miner is subsidised by the German Government to the extent of £6,700 a year. Our coal is £10 a tonne cheaper than any other coal in Europe, and ours is much the most efficient mining industry. It would be absurd for me to put it at risk in pursuit of short-term market fluctuations which may well not persist.

But will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a serious matter to take a positive step by political decision to lower the efficiency of our electricity supply system? In fact, it is a sin against the light. Has my right hon. Friend taken into account that the electricity supply trade unions are very doubtful about the wisdom of this step, and will he consult them first?

When I discussed the matter in the context of the situation in south Wales, the electricity trade unions were present. As my hon. Friend knows, the unions in the TUC fuel and power committee, under the chairmanship of Frank Chapple, have been urging upon the Government for a long time an integrated national energy policy looking long term. This is the inevitable consquence of looking long term—that one does not set at risk secure supplies of fuel in pursuit of short-term market interests. Nor have I ever known the electricity unions to fail to draw to my attention the economic disadvantage which they suffer vis-a-vis gas—my hon. Friend has made that point—and I think that energy policy must be made by a Minister answerable to Parliament. That is the view which I take.

Notwithstanding the concerted attack by Tory backwoodsmen on the mining industry today at Question Time, will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee for the future of Britain's coal industry and give an assurance that there will not be any more oil-fired power stations built while we have this massive quantity of indigenous coal still under our soil?

I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend's supplementary question in this way. I am in favour of using indigenous supplies of fuel, and that applies not only to coal but to our nuclear programme for which we have a considerable indigenous capacity. As the House will know, I have recently told the Central Electricity Generating Board that I am not prepared to authorise the Inswork Point oil-fired power station, and I believe that that, too, is a sensible decision in the light of all the factors which I have described.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a nuclear power station will produce energy—electricity—at 62 per cent. of the cost of coal? Would it not therefore be wiser to have a nuclear power station near Plymouth? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has no statutory power to compel the CEGB to consume more coal? He has not got clause 2(2) and clause 9(2) of the draft Bill passed by the House.

I appreciate that, but at the same time I have responsibilities placed upon me by statute to co-ordinate the nation's energy policies, and I have to do the best I can in the circumstances which confront me. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government announced in April that, in their view, the power of specific directive ought to be available—

The Minister has not got it.

—subject to proper parliamentary approval. The hon. Gentleman might notice that nuclear power depends upon uranium, and last week the European Commission prevented me from signing an agreement with the Australian Government to buy uranium. I have to take account of a number of factors in considering the future availability of supplies.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that his policy will be welcomed not only in south Wales but in all mining areas, and he should pursue his objective of getting an integrated energy policy? Does he accept that, although great profits are now being made by all the energy industries—gas, electricity and coal—there ought to be a long-term policy recognising, as he said, that there is at least 300 years' supply of coal, probably more, available to us?

Obviously, I agree with my hon. Friend, but from the questions put from the Opposition Benches it would appear that the lessons of 1973 have been forgotten and Conservative Members are really advocating pit closures, which would put us at the mercy of vast increases in the prices of imported oil or imported coal to which we should then be subject.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the real threat of pit closures comes from his Government who have been so slow in recognising the problem which they now face? In the light of the productivity scheme, which was bound to give rise to this concern about higher stocks and the problem of coalburn, why has he been so slow and only now begun to consider the problem? Does he maintain, as he did in "Coal for the Future", that the crucial factor for the coal industry is to maintain the cutting edge of its competitiveness if it is to have a real future in this country, which can be so important for us?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The mining industry, like all the fuel industries, including electricity, has been badly hit by the economic recession and temporarily the various price differentials have been subject to fluctuations. But it is confidently expected that there may well be an oil price increase of 10 per cent., and the truth is that his party's policy is meaningful only in terms of a pit closure programme. That, in effect, is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, although he has not the courage to say it openly.

In view of the Secreretary of State's totally unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this important matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has had time to consider the Central Electricity Generating Board's corporate plan.

I have seen the CEGB's 1978 corporate plan which will be taken into account in reviewing national energy policy. I have already indicated to the board the importance the Government place on maintaining and strengthening the role of coal in generating electricity.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in cost forecasting the indication is that nuclear power will become more and more efficient as a source of electrical generation? In the light of the views expressed in the corporate plan by the CEGB, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House what has happened to plans for the pressurised water reactor?

The answer to the latter part of the supplementary question is that there has been no change. In January I announced that we should be authorising the ordering of two advanced gas cooled reactors and that an option for the PWR would be available. Why the hon. Gentleman should identify our future nuclear programme with an American reactor, excluding the AGR, I do not know. He chose to mention only the PWR and not the AGR.

Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on the reasons why the European Commission chose to intervene in the way that he has described? Can he say what justification the Commission gave for intervening in Britain's affairs in the way that it apparently has?

I shall do my best. The Commission evidently decided to interpret the Euratom treaty in such a way as to prevent us from signing an agreement with a Commonwealth country to acquire uranium which this country badly needs for its nuclear programme. Although I took the opportunity of discussing the matter with Commissioner Brunner when he was in London, that view prevailed. In the Government's view—and this was made clear—the Commission is wholly wrong and is acting in a way that is contrary to our national interest and the wider interests of the Community.

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 last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

I meet the chairmen of all the fuel industries regularly.

When he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will the Secretary of State apologise for his dilatory approach to the Community in trying to arrange a scheme which would benefit the British coal industry and increase consumption in Europe?

I do not think that the chairman of the NCB, the mining unions or anybody else thinks that there is anything to apologise for in what we have done. We have put our view forward for 18 months at EEC Council meetings. We agreed to the coking coal scheme, which helps the German steel industry, and we agreed to the Euratom loans, which primarily help France and Italy. We had every reason to expect that the steam coal scheme would be accepted. It was not. Far from apologising to anybody, we have been much disappointed by the Community's failure to allow the cheapest coal in Europe—I gave the figures a few minutes ago, showing that it is £10 a tonne cheaper than anyone else's—to be burnt in preference to cheap imported Polish coal. This view has been most formidably expressed in the Council, to the satisfaction of the British mining industry.

When the Secretary of State last had discussions with the chairman of the CEGB, did he confess to him that his own stated intention to try to intervene in the merit order decisions of the CEGB would be both premature and improper in the light of the Government's commitment in paragraphs 20 and 21 of their nationalised industry White Paper to do such things only on the basis of secured legislation and adequate compensation?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what is meant. If there is a coalburn scheme of a kind already announced and approved for Scotland and Wales which makes coal available more cheaply to the CEGB, then, without our intervening in the merit order as such, the order of burning of the stations individually changes. That is what is proposed. We believe that that can be done without impinging in any way on the cost of electricity paid for by the consumer.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the heads of the fuel industries the current shambles in the accountancy system being adopted by them, with some of them adopting current cost accounting and others not doing so? Why has the right hon. Gentleman failed to secure agreement on a common system for all of these nationalised industries?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point on accountancy. This is primarily a matter for the relationship between the nationalised industries, not only in the fuel sector, and the Treasury. I have seen some of the comments on whether inflation accounting methods are used or various other methods are used. The matter was discussed at a meeting of the nationalised industries' chairmen, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at which I was present. That will require further clarification.

Did my right hon. Friend see a letter from Sir Derek Ezra in The Times last week suggesting that the public sector industries faced real criticism for profiteering if they were in the black but were equally condemned if they made a loss? When my right hon. Friend meets Sir Derek, will he try to explain to him why this occurs? Will he confirm that the public sector energy industries have very impressive achievements to their credit? It would be very useful if he would invite the Opposition Front Bench to confirm that it approves of that success.

The one constant in all these matters is the hostility of the Conservative Party to the public sector, either for losing money as a result of its own policy or for making money as a result of the policy we have adopted. There are complications about inflation accountancy, but the fact is, that the publicly owned industries have done well. I have already cited coal, which is outstanding compared with any other mining industry in Europe. The day the Opposition pay a tribute to the public sector, we shall take seriously the criticisms they may wish to make of those industries from time to time.

Why was the Secretary of State less than frank with the House in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) in saying that he did not consider that he had been too slow in pushing the the coal scheme in Europe, when in a Financial Times interview only last week he said that he thought he had pushed the coal scheme too late and that it would have been better if coal had been part of the earlier package? We certainly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's rather franker earlier comments and not the comments he has now made to the house.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the position. I pressed the steam coal case 18 months ago, and the Council of Ministers would not agree to it. I felt it right not to hold back—[Interruption.] Of course I have read the article. I felt it right not to hold back on agreeing to the Euratom loans and the coking coal scheme, but the Council of Ministers has not been ready to endorse our policy. There is no power open to a British Minister to force it, although I would not mind a bit more help from the Conservative Party on our approach to Europe as well.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the CEGB, will he press on him the advantages for the boiler industry of building a new boiler to replace the one at No. 11 unit C station, at Drakelow power station in my constituency? Is he aware that the CEGB has announced that it is not prepared to repair it but that It is considering building a new one in its place?

The reference to the new boiler at No. 11 created a slight confusion in my mind. I cannot go into individual management decisions, nor is it my wish to do so. But I think that the case for refurbishing existing power stations at this time is well worth considering, because it would be of real help to the industry. The boiler-making industry and the power plant industry must be kept in being for the major orders we expect to follow. Therefore, to that extent, I hope that I may satisfy my hon. Friend's general desire.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why did my right hon. Friend group Question 5 with Questions 9 and 16? Question 5 concerned the chairman of the NCB and the other Questions were about the chairman of the CEGB.

The Minister decides his own grouping. Supplementary questions seem to have indicated why the Questions were grouped.

Will the Secretary of State examine the recent proposal by the European Commission for the substitution of imported coal by home-mined coal both in this country and in Europe? If so, has he costed it and what is his attitude to it? It seems to me that this is exactly along the lines that he has been proposing. I hope that he will be successful in pushing this through, because I believe that it would be advantageous not only to us but to Europe.

I most strongly agree. It does not seem to me to be very sensible to pass a lot of resolutions calling for a reduction of dependence on imported energy and at the same time to allow the domestic coal industry to be put at risk by imported coal. I have put forward this point of view most powerfully over a period of 18 months to two years, but the Council of Ministers has not accepted it. I think that it is necessary and should be encouraged, and I shall continue to press it. I have placed it on the agenda for the next Energy Council meeting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and many other Labour Members heard with great concern the problems that are caused by the interference of the EEC in our energy policy? Does he discuss these matters with the chairmen of the nationalised industries when he meets them and does he tell them exactly how difficult this interference is making the work of energy use and conservation?

I do discuss these matters. The House knows that the Commission is attacking us on six fronts at the moment—the interest relief grants, the Offshore Supplies Office, the landing rights, the possible attack upon the monopoly purchase of gas by British Gas, nuclear policy on the Euratom agreement, and refineries. This is a major range of attacks upon our national energy policy. I discuss them with those concerned and I might add—[Interruplion.] If the House will listen it will hear that these are not disputes with other member States, many of which share our view about the role of the Commission in energy policy. This is a question involving the Commission, not member States. It would be helpful if I could carry some Opposition Members with me on these issues.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will review the security and confidential information made available to the British National Oil Corporation through participation agreements.

I am satisfied that the Department of Energy and the British National Oil Corporation are honouring the commitments relating to confidentiality of information contained in participation agreements with the various companies. I do not, therefore, propose to hold a review.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he recalls that the requirements for investment up to 1987 are over £15 billion and that that investment will mostly be repaid out of retained earnings? Does not the threat to confidentiality call that in question? Further, has he considered the fact that the discriminatory nature of the treatment, on licensing and financial terms, is probably in breach of articles 86 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not true. I would agree with the first part of it. If there were breaches of confidentiality, it would be very serious. But there have been none.

Are not the Government putting an unnecessary strain on those working within BNOC by making it both a commercial oil company and adviser to the Minister? Does he not realise that this must be a situation which breeds mistrust and misunderstanding?

It is true that the corporation has to be well aware of the practical difficulties occasioned by the requirement regarding non-use and non-dissemination within the corporation. Steps have been taken within the corporation to ensure that its personnel are acquainted with the need to observe those requirements scrupulously. May I venture the opinion that, perhaps, the personnel of BNOC are in this respect in the same position as other professional people in banking and in industry generally?

Does not the Minister accept that until January 1976 94 per cent. of the total investment in the North Sea came from private industry? Is it not essential that the confidence of private industry should be stimulated rather than hampered by anything which BNOC might do?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is a little hostile towards BNOC. The fact is that BP represents a substantial State involvement in the North Sea, so that I cannot confirm his first figure. Further, the British Gas Corporation has played a singularly substantial part in developing the North Sea. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the private and public sectors, married as they are, have to get on well together, which means that confidentiality in these matters has to be preserved by everyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has initiated any discussions on the proposals outlined in his White Paper "The Development of Alternative Sources of Energy".

Detailed discussions with contractors are in hand on projects arising from the increased research programmes announced in the White Paper on alternative sources of energy. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the near future about the membership of the Severn Barrage Committee.

Due to the possibly serious consequences of the failure to develop alternative forms of energy, does not the Minister agree that the expenditure plans for research are too low and that this is an area where over-insurance against possible catastrophe would be perfectly justified?

I share some of the hon. Member's concern. There are two schools of thought about this. One believes that we are spending too much on alternative sources of energy, while the other believes that we are spending too little. A great deal of the technology that we are discussing is still in the laboratory stage; it is still very much in its infancy. As the technology and the engineering progress, more investment will have to be made.

May I ask whether, in the discussions on alternative sources of energy, people have brought home to the Minister the fact that to spend less than £1 million on the development of wind energy is totally inadequate in view of the potential of that source? Has he been made aware of the fact that to allocate fewer than 20 people to alternative source work within ETSU is also inadequate?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, much of this technology is in the laboratory stage. As it develops, the Government have pledged themselves to spend more money. Many people feel that we are spending too much in this direction. The Government's view has always been clear and specific.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been two committees on the Severn barrage which have reported, the first in the 1920s? Is he aware that, although these reports have been favourable, they have remained on the shelves? Does he realise that, as a Young Socialist, I was presented with a prize for writing an essay on the Severn barrage, the prize being presented by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West, (Mr. Thomas), who was young and debonair at the time? We are still waiting for action to be taken.

My hon. Friend and the House will perhaps agree that the prize is now beginning to shine as a result of the commitment we have announced. We hope very shortly to announce the full membership of the committee. The fact that we have already announced the capital sum that will be involved in the feasibility studies is of importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association.

I saw representatives of the association on 20th July.

When the Minister last met oil company representatives, did he discuss with them the widespread press reports indicating, apparently from informed sources, that there is to be a change in the oil taxation structure of the North Sea? Are these reports true? If so, do they not indicate that the Government have made a miscalculation in the past and that there has been a delay in recognising this?

I discussed with UKOOA its views about the sixth round arrangements. The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is "No, Sir". As for the second part, the hon. Gentleman will have to refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is it not true, as a general proposition, that the benefit from oil development is either to the nation or to the companies concerned, while the cost is often borne by the local community in environmental terms and by way of a strain on services? Since the Department of the Environment seems unaware of whether any other OECD countries levy local taxes on offshore development in particular, may I ask the Minister to look at this matter so that local authorities in areas where there are close offshore developments may feel that there is some possibility of their getting some return for the costs which they will be called upon to bear?

That is an interesting point. It has been reflected in what has happened in the Shetland Islands and, to a lesser extent, in the Orkney Islands. This is not a matter exclusively for the Department of the Environment or the Scottish or Welsh Offices; it is for the Department of Energy. We take it very seriously, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

When he meets the offshore operators, will my right hon. Friend take up the question of the need for better health and safety regulations for the workers involved? When does he intend to raise this matter so that there will be a tightening-up of the present regulations?

My hon. Friend will know that we have included references to these matters in the criteria, so-called, for the fifth round and, I hope, the sixth round. My right hon. Friend is in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Employment on this subject. I hope that we shall have something to say about it quite soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is now satisfied with the level of investment in the nationalised energy industries in the United Kingdom.

I am sure that the present level of investment in the United Kingdom nationalised energy industries, now running at an annual rate of some £.1.8 billion, is right. For the future, the hon. Member will find projections of possible investment require- ments up to the year 2000 in Energy Commission Paper No. 7.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that we are developing an integrated energy policy? Does he call together, when he has these discussions, the chairmen of all the energy industries to make certain that everyone knows what is intended? Does he not think it crazy that we should spend so much money on gas and oil, consuming it in great quantities in the next two or three decades, when we have an abundance of coal which is not being used to the extent that it should be?

My hon. Friend is, I know, a fair man. He will admit that my right hon. Friend has been outstanding in his attempts to try to bring together, not only informally but formally through the Energy Commission, the chairmen of the nationalised industries and all those possibly concerned with an integrated energy policy. I hope that the energy policy Green Paper is the first of several on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the best ways to achieve a satisfactory level of investment is by a proper increase in retained earnings and profits, and that, while some of us welcome the progress that has been made in that direction, we should be a great deal more satisfied with progress if we could be satisfied that there were not frequent changes in accounting and depreciation policy which masked the real attitudes and achievements of the industry concerned?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is an interesting comment not only on the nationalised industries but on industry in general. In reply to the first part, I assure him that we try very hard in that regard.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a widely-held opinion in the mining industry that many coal mines were closed prematurely at the time when we switched over largely to oil for industry? Would it not be fair to ask for some investment to explore the possibility of reopening pits?

I think that with hindsight —with some people, with foresight—almost everyone would agree with my hon. Friend that the rundown of the coal mines in the 1950s and 1960s was a great error and something that we certainly must not repeat. But "The Plan for Coal" is a witness to the industry of the intention of this Government at any rate to keep coal in its proper place.

Where substantial public investment is involved, is it not right that there should be the clearest public accountability? I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) said about the need for uniformity of accounting standards. Is it not unbelievably dilatory of the Department and the Secretary of State that there should still be no financial target for the British Gas Corporation so that the chairman is setting his own target?

I have already acknowledged the importance of the point made in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The point relating to the British Gas Corporation is a serious matter, I agree. But let us not run away from the fact that the corporation is one of the most successful publicly owned enterprises in the world.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of investment in the publicly owned energy industries should be a model to the private manufacturing sector, and that if investment in the private manufacturing sector were comparable to the level of investment he has been describing to the House the British economy would not be in the mess that it is in today?

Absolutely.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he had with the European Commission on the subject of alternative uses of energy, such as wave power and solar energy, before announcing his recent programme in the field.

There is close and continuing consultation on research into the alternative sources of energy with the other member States and with the Commission.

Which work can best be done on a national basis and which on a European basis?

In each of the areas of work, one has to consider each aspect on its merits. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are projects such as JET which are so large that they are clearly best done on an international basis. There are others where local climatic, sociological or industrial conditions make it better for them to be tackled nationally. Certainly that consideration is one of the factors that the review to be carried out by the CREST (Energy) Committee will take into account.

What proportion of the research and development budget is spent on nuclear power as opposed to the various alternative sources of energy?

I do not have the figure with me. I will write to the hon. Lady.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects next to hold a meeting with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.

The date of my next meeting with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers has not yet been fixed. I met him this morning.

When the right hon. Gentleman sees Mr. Gormley, will he ask him whether he is entirely happy with the Government's guideline of a 5 per cent. pay increase for the miners? If the answer is "Yes", will he ask Mr. Gormley whether that undertaking will continue during the period of the next Tory Government too?

I cannot look as far ahead as the possibility that in the late 1980s there might be another Tory Government, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that one of the many reasons why the NUM has given the Government such strong support is to be sure that, by an agreed policy, we shall be able to prevent a repetition of the disastrous episodes of recent years.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to Mr. Gormley that many of us on the Back Benches are not particularly satisfied with the 5 per cent. guideline but that we would not be satisfied with the type of policies that would be pursued by the Conservative Party, which would lead us into constant confrontation with the trade unions?

I think that there is no doubt that one of the reasons why there was a change of Government in 1974 was that the British public did not wish to have a Government engaged on a course of confrontation with the mining industry or other industries. As my hon. Friend knows, the NUM has, through pithead ballots, supported the Government in the recent pay policies, and that support has reflected the desire of the mining industry that it should be able to proceed without the risk of confrontation being renewed.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on her aid policy for Africa.

I plan to increase steadily over the period ahead the amount of British bilateral aid allocated to Africa, particularly to the poorest countries. This year it amounts to £142 million, and it will, of course, rise next year within the increasing aid programme.

But cannot the right hon. Lady give us some assurance that her aid policy is based on the criterion of human rights? Has she given some intimation to countries such as Ethiopia that further aid will be withheld until we are satisfied about the civil rights situation?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here for my last Question Time when I explained that we have a residual aid programme to Ethiopia concerned with a rural water supply which we do not think it sensible to cut off because it will benefit the poorest people; but we are entering into no new aid projects for Ethiopia at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that overwhelmingly on this side of the House we are in favour of what she is doing in her aid policy towards Africa but that, like Oliver Twist, we would like more? What is she doing about the disaster in the Sudan, where ther have been catastrophic floods? Much of the Gezeira, the creation of Arthur Gaitskell, has been overwhelmed, and hundreds of villages have been covered. Help is neded there. Can my right hon. Friend please tell us what is happening?

Because we have a very efficient disaster unit in the Ministry, which I set up three or four years ago, we have already sent some special assistance to the Sudan to help meet the disaster. There may well be need for more aid, but we are already under way on the matter.

Will the right hon. Lady say whether it continues to be the Government's policy that, in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, human rights should feature as a prominent factor in the provision of aid?

We are seeking to make that so, but it is difficult. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be easier to include matters like human rights in the Lomé Convention if a specific effort is made in the renegotiations to protect the interests of ACP countries, particularly against the inroads of the common agricultural policy being pursued by the EEC?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I took part last Monday in the initial stages of the renegotiations of the Lomé Convention. Clearly, it will be a complex of factors, and we shall have to see how it works out on all sides. I agree that there are a number of interests of ACP countries that must be protected. We hope to be successful on the human rights issue, but I can only say to the House that it will be difficult.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether her Department plans to take any new policy initiatives in the light of the recent Bonn summit meeting.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress is being made with the cancellation of debt of the poorest developing countries.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proposals she has on debt relief for underdeveloped countries; and whether she will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she proposes to implement her decision to consider giving debt relief to the poorest countries on a country-by-country basis.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on British policy on debt relief in the light of the Bonn summit.

As part of their aid policy, the Government are taking steps with effect from today to remove the burden of past aid loans, known as RTA—retrospective terms adjustment—or to adopt equivalent measures, in respect of 17 of the poorest developing countries. These are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Botswana, Egypt, the Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nepal, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, and Western Samoa. All have aid repayments outstanding, but are now eligible to receive aid from us on grant terms.

Is the Minister aware that many of us welcome her announcement of debt relief for the poorest countries, but is she further aware that it is disappointing that this agreement was not possible at the multilateral Bonn summit, as the Prime Minister had indicated? Does this not suggest some failure of British policy? Will the Minister confirm that among the 17 countries which will benefit from this decision are some with a per capita income above the internationally agreed poverty datum line of 5280 a head?

On the second point, no. Some of the data are in the process of being revised, and in fact the RTA will extend to countries which normally tit into the category of the poorest countries. On the hon. Member's first point, it is not a failure of British policy at the Bonn summit; it is just a pity that other countries have not reacted similarly.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned that in future there will be grant aid instead of loans for such countries, but can she confirm that this will enable countries with the least resources to benefit in human terms in ways that might not have been possible under the former system of lending? Will she tell us how this will be effected in the coming years?

In fact, the essence of this new step in aid policy is the logical inconsistency of clawing back debt repayment and interest from countries to which we have already been giving grants for some years. Of course, it follows that in future these countries will have grants, as in the past, and obviously that will assist their development policies considerably.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the £60 million a year cost will not come out of already promised aid programmes to any of those 17 countries?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend on that matter. I do not know whether the House has completely taken into account what we decided in the public expenditure White Paper of a few months ago—that the aid programme should increase by 6 per cent. a year over the next four years. This is the biggest increase in all public expenditure programmes and it means that we can use the aid programme to do certain very valuable things, such as giving this debt relief, and at the same time continue to increase the aid programmes to the poorest countries. There is no conflict at all.

Does not the Minister believe that it would have been far more sensible to give debt relief on a country-by-country basis to those countries that were having specific problems rather than giving it in toto to countries with an economic level below a certain figure?

There are certain countries which are not included in this list to which we have been giving additional special measures of aid because of their difficulties. Jamaica and Zambia are two examples. The logic of the aid policy is that it is absurd to continue to claw back debt repayments and interest from countries to which we are giving grants. That is the basis of it, and the hon. Member must agree that we must have some logic.

While personally welcoming the principle of the arrangements that the Minister has announced, may I ask her under what authority the Government can make such a commitment? Surely parliamentary approval is required, and when will that be sought?

It would have been required had we met the cost of this scheme from outside the already agreed aid programme. But Parliament has already given its approval for that.

In view of the right hon. Lady's very important answer, may I express some regret that she has not made a statement on this matter so that we could probe it more effectively?

I shall certainly expand a shade on the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent- lands (Mr. Rifkind). A country which comes into the poor category has terrible difficulty in its development problems, and therefore acute difficulty in repaying past debts and interest. That goes without saying.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Lady has made a statement which commits this country to an expenditure or loss of £60 million a year in the next 10 years to be taken off the existing aid budget. This involves a commitment by this country over a period to an expenditure of over £900 million. Her statement commits a future Parliament to certain expenditure. Should this not have been a statement by the Minister rather than an answer to a Question? Secondly, may we have a statement by you, Sir, tomorrow on the implications of decisions announced in this way by Ministers? Surely this involves the decision of the present Parliament and indeed of future Parliaments.

First, it is a matter of judgment for the Minister herself as to how she answers Questions. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, every Parliament is the master of its own affairs. I have no doubt that the next Parliament will behave as it wishes to behave—properly, I hope.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is satisfied that moneys being lent or given to Mozambique by the United Kingdom Government are being used for the purposes for which they were intended; and if she will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Is it not clear, even to the Minister, that from Mozambique there has been mounted a sustained campaign of murder, mutilation and arson against the Queen's subjects—mainly black—in Rhodesia? Whatever the intention of the right hon. Lady, her Department's funds—those provided by her Government—are helping to sustain a Marxist regime which is the enemy of this country.

I appreciate the hon. Member's deep concern about this matter. First, we have been responding, like 50 other countries and international agencies, to the economic needs of Mozambique since the closure of the border with Rhodesia. If the hon. Member is interested in a peaceful settlement with Rhodesia, however difficult that may seem, he should know that the closing of the border between Mozambique and Rhodesia has been a crucial factor in this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend, in determining whether aid or money should be given or lent to Mozambique, have regard for the fact that the United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia have been observed by Mozambique, whereas the former Fascist colonial regime in that country was co-operating with the illegal regime in Rhodesia?

That is precisely the point. I quote very briefly some facts from the last United Nations mission, which identified a gap of $87 million in terms of transport, telecommunications systems and other development projects which had been gravely damaged by the closing of the border with Rhodesia.

Can the Minister tell the House, for the benefit of hon. Members and the public, exactly the use to which aid to Mozambique is being put? Some of us feel very concerned that it may be directed into channels for which it was not intended, either by the Minister or by this House.

I have given answers, written and oral, on this subject, many times in this House. The hon. Gentleman may well refer to them. I have specified what the aid has gone to. I have indicated that the aid is carefully monitored.

May we not be given the information now?

If Mr. Speaker will allow me 10 minutes in which to go through all the parliamentary answers I have already given on the subject, I shall be glad to do so. I repeat that I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers which I have already given.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she is taking to promote the development of the jojoba plant in desert areas of developing countries, with a view to producing substitutes for sperm whale oil for use in the leather industry.

Research is still at an early stage and we do not intend to duplicate the excellent work being done in the United States of America, Mexico and Israel. When we judge that we can make a significant contribution of benefit to the underdeveloped countries, it will be made.

Is time on our side in this matter? Is not the truth that the leather industry at one level—and, much more seriously, the world in general—will have no whales when they are all massacred? Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless something is done as a matter of urgency rather than waiting for this, that and the other piece of research, we shall lose the world's biggest mammal'?

I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The plant is potentially an excellent substitute, but there are considerable problems to be overcome before it can be considered a commercially viable alternative.

Will the Minister pursue this matter with great intensity? May I tell the House that I drive my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) back to his flat at night and that these great plants which he puts in my car are causing me some embarrassment? I believe that my hon. Friend has a very good case and I urge the Minister to pursue the topic with the greatest energy.

I fully recognise what my hon. Friend has said. I have spent some time examining the problem, although not at the same kind of personal discomfort suffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

It is not discomfort.

Excellent work is being undertaken. At present we do not believe that it would be helpful to duplicate the work that is being carried out until some benefit is shown from the research.