asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the offshore oil construction workers' dispute in so far as it affects oil production and safe working on platforms.

This is a very brief answer Mr. Speaker. I understand that the unofficial industrial action by offshore oil construction workers has so far had virtually no effect on oil production. It has not yet affected safe working on the platforms.

Does the Minister realise that, while pay is a not unimportant consideration in this dispute, the workers are, nevertheless, concerned at the long hours which they have to work and their conditions of work? Will he take action to secure some form of package that will enable this strike to be settled?

I agree with that. If the workers were to take the advice of their trade union officials, both local and national, they would return to work and allow negotiations to continue, and I think that if they did that they would find a favourable response from the employers.

Is the Minister of State aware that on 26 January his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy met some of the striking shop stewards? Does he agree that that was an act of unmitigated irresponsibility, as the strike is unofficial? Was not the Secretary of State in danger of undermining the authority of the official union view?

On the contrary. Not only did my right hon. Friend do that, but I myself, at the invitation of some of my constituents, met the shop stewards, some of whom were my constituents. I urged them to do exactly what I have said in my reply to the question, that is, to observe the recommendation of their local and national officials to return to work so that fruitful negotiations could continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans are currently under review for capital expenditure on new electricity generating plant; and how much is to be spent on nuclear power, coal-fired stations, oil-fired stations, and energy from renewable resources, respectively.

Current plans, together with power stations already under construction, estimate some £2,100 million would be spent by the Central Electricity Generating Board on generation over the next five years: 53·5 per cent. for nuclear plant; 28 per cent. for coal-fired plant; 12 per cent. for oil-fired plant and 6·5 per cent. for pumped storage. The Government have allocated £16 million to research and development on renewable energy sources.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is need for an integrated policy which takes into account possible conservation measures and which steers away from the use of oil at power stations, bearing in mind that the use of oil increased last year compared to other sources of energy?

A programme costing £320 million for conservation was announced by myself some months ago. I have made it clear that I am not prepared to authorise any more oil-fired stations, though some ordered in the late 1960s are still coming on stream.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in both his current and future plans, that because of the enormous danger of over-capacity in the heavy electrical machine manufacturing industry top priority must be given to orders with export potential? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless that is done we shall see the destruction of that industry in this country? Will he give an assurance that on current orders and future plans the main objective will be to get overseas orders?

Yes, Sir. Export orders are very important, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Chinese have expressed some interest in ordering. We have a need for such orders very much in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the investment and pricing policy of the electricity supply industry are being steadily undermined by the undisciplined import of natural gas into our fuel economy, with serious consequences for both the electricity supply and coal industries?

I do not know whether gas from the North Sea is an import in that sense. It is an indigenous resource, and the problems of integrating the various fuels, one with another, is at the base of our national fuel policy.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the expenditure which he has just announced on the future of the nuclear industry is likely to be hampered because so far he has been reluctant to announce future plans for the restructuring of the British nuclear industry?

I should like to make progress with that, but it does require the consent of the parties concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the electricity discount scheme.

I am satisfied that the arrangements for this winter's extended electricity discount scheme will enable many more consumers with low incomes to benefit from the help it offers than was the case previously.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the extension to which he has referred is most welcome? Will he publish in the Official Report the groups which are eligible for discount? In view of the heavy electricity bills that can be expected this winter, will he intensify his efforts to publicise this scheme so that the maximum number of those who are eligible can apply?

The answer to all those questions is "Yes ".

What is unique about the electricity discount scheme that it should cause the Department of Energy, alone among Government Departments, to choose to subsidise the Morning Star by advertising the scheme in that newspaper on 22 January?

There is nothing unique about it. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. The Morning Star has been used on no fewer than 10 occasions to display such advertisements.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since the figure of £20 is the minimum requirement before anybody can take advantage of the discount scheme, it will mean that many pensioners will be unable to benefit very much from it? Will he consider removing this requirement?

No, and I must correct my hon. Friend. Although she may understand the scheme, I believe that her words may be misleading. Everybody who qualifies for the scheme this winter—that is between 4 million and 5 million people—will receive the £5 payment, except those who are paid in receipt of rent and rate rebates. A significant number of people will get £5. It is only for those with electricity bills in excess of £20 that the additional discount takes effect. We could not possibly alter that. We are already allocating £45 million to the scheme as a whole.

Will the Minister undertake to have discussions with the Fuel Poverty Forum and other bodies which have strongly commented on the availability of the scheme as it affects old people and those who require further heating assistance?

Yes, Sir. I recently wrote to David Green, the secretary of one of the groups co-ordinating such work, and offered to meet him and similar groups. I await his reply.

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

On 31 January I chaired a meeting of the Coal Industry Tripartite Group, at which the chairman of the National Coal Board and the national officers of all the mining unions were present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he fully supports Sir Derek Ezra's statement at the opening of the pay negotiations that moderation in this year's settlement is essential if the long-term investment plans of the coal industry are to be successful?

The negotiations are taking place between NCB and the unions. The tripartite group discussed the future of the industry.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the conclusions of the tripartite group on the development of the South Wales coalfield, in view of the fact that output and productivity there are rising at a higher rate than in any other coalfield in Great Britain?

I am aware of the importance of South Wales. I have chaired two or three of the four meetings. I hope that we shall complete our studies of the South Wales area shortly. I am hopeful about the outcome.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at a recent meeting at which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was present he pressed his right hon. Friend to make it possible for the NCB with the NUM to make a settlement outside the Governmnt guidelines?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed, because we did not discuss the subject of pay at the tripartite meeting.

When my right hon. Friend next meets Sir Derek, will he have a word with him about the implementation by the Board of the coal mining subsidence legislation? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in my area about the lack of adequate information on subsidence and, secondly, the lack of consideration in providing adequate compensation for suffering caused by stress and strain?

I shall certainly raise those matters with Sir Derek Ezra.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman not give a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)? Does the right hon. Gentleman support Sir Derek Ezra's call for moderation in pay claims if the capital investment programme in the coal industry is to be sustained?

Negotiations are between the Coal Board and the NUM. I certainly will not take advice from the Conservative Party about how to handle the mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase State control of the energy industries.

A number of the proposals in the White Paper "The Nationalised Industries", (Cmnd. 7131), which dealt with relations with, and control over, the nationalised industries, are being pursued in the energy sector. In addition, the House is aware of the Government proposal for legislation to reorganise the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. Otherwise, I have at present no plans to enact new controls over the energy industries.

That last statement will no doubt be welcomed, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the post-Iranian situation, if I may so describe it, it is important that we do our best to encourage the greatest possible investment, particularly in the oil industry? Does he agree also that, in view of the lessening interest of both Esso and Shell, this might be the time for a little less stick and a little more carrot to encourage investment from the multi-national and private enterprise sectors?

The last round of licences was a great success. I have been guided in my approach by the lead given by Winston Churchill in 1914 when he nationalised the Anglo-Persian Petroleum Company. That was the best public investment that there has ever been. Undoubtedly, the growing public control over the North Sea is the real answer to the uncertainty in the supply of oil world wide.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's concern to maintain a sensible and amicable relationship with the energy industry. Does he think it reasonable that this House, in view of the most severe weather that this country has experienced for a generation, should offer commendation on the fact that the industry has served the nation particularly well?

I agree with that entirely. Not only has the industry served the country well, but, as we look around the world and see the great uncertainty in parts of the world from which we have drawn oil supplies, we can only conclude that it becomes even more necessary to preserve, develop and expand our indigenous resources.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the industries for which he is responsible is that covered by the NCB? How can he turn his back on discussions between the Board and the mineworkers' leaders, when he must stand behind the Board's chairman unless his absence of support will undermine the negotiations altogether?

Not only have I not turned my back on the discussions, but last week I chaired a meeting—a meeting which is due to be resumed next week—about the future of the mining industry. That is the proper way for a Minister to act. I am not prepared to negotiate with the NUM, which is a task placed by Parliament on the shoulders of the NCB.

What are the latest prospects for the introduction of an electricity Bill this Session?

I have been engaged in discussions to see whether I could find a basis for agreement with the Opposition to make such a Bill possible. Those discussions have been taking place for some time. I am in correspondence with the Opposition Front Bench, and I hope that we shall make progress.

With regard to State ownership in certain areas, does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the recent comment by Lord Kearton that the national oil account is unnecessary and should be done away with?

The national oil account was set up by Parliament. I am strongly in favour of chairmen of nationalised industries expressing their views, but I am not of the opinion that they should determine what is in the national interest. The House of Commons should stand by the decision which it took on the advice of the present Government, and myself as Secretary of State.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members—indeed, I hope all—will warmly welcome the statement that it is not his job to negotiate with the NUM and the NCB? Too many Ministers in the past have made statements on wages matters which they should not have made. Is he also aware that many of us would regard the so-called post-Iranian situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) as precisely the reason why we should have control of our own energy resources and not allow them to get into other hands?

I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on that latter point. The Conservative Party introduced the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act, which gave it total power over all the energy industries at the time of the OPEC price increase of 1973. We have introduced the Energy Act, and public ownership of our own resources is the best guarantee that we shall have access to them during periods of world emergency.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding alternative sources of energy.

The Commission participates in discussions in Council when its proposals are considered by my European colleagues and myself.

Will the Secretary of State say when the Council intends to discuss this matter and reach a decision? Does he agree that, in view of the inadequate size of the programme in terms of research into alternative energy sources, it would be much better to pool our resources on an EEC basis?

I do not agree that our programmes are inadequate. The United Kingdom will spend £15·7 million over the next three or four years. The Community is spending only 59 million units of account, which is not much more, for the whole of the Community. I believe that it is important to go for what is cost-effective. I was somewhat surprised to hear, at the last Council of Ministers meeting, that the programme we were then discussing was recommended on the ground that it was easier to get money out of the Community than from national Governments. My opinion is that one should be cost-effective whether one is doing it at home or in conjunction with others. When the scheme is properly worked out and presented, I am sure that it will be agreed by the Council.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that alternative sources of energy are likely to be sufficiently substantial to warrant a decrease in the provision for nuclear fuel, either in Europe or in the United Kingdom?

It is difficult to say. Nuclear fuel is, in part, competing with oil, gas and coal as well as alternative sources and conservation. At the moment the estimate is that alternative sources of fuel will give us only about 10 million tonnes of coal equivalent by the year 2000. It may be that one or other of the areas on which we are now working will become more promising and permit of more development, and that might be able to carry our electricity-bearing load.

Do I understand from the Secretary of State's previous answer that our programme of investigation into alternative sources of energy is entirely separate from the European programme and that it does not contribute towards what we are doing? May I ask whether we contribute towards the European programme and what benefit we have had from that programme so far?

There are various levels. There is the national programme, which every country has, the EEC programme and the International Energy Agency programme—the fluidised bed burning at Grimethorpe, for example, which is financed not by the EEC but by the IEA. We should pursue matters of alternative energy whenever we get the opportunity, but we must not assume that everything that is more expensive and done internationally is necessarily better than working within our own resources where, as in the case of alternative energy, climatic and other conditions vary according to the country concerned.

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

My right hon. Friend last met the director-general of the UKOOA on 1 December 1978 at the meeting of the Energy Commission. I last met him on 19 and again on 20 January.

When will the Government respond to the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association's survey of the North Sea which showed a drop in confidence by exploration companies? Would it help for the Government to give a long-term statement, rather on the lines of the so-called Varley assurances of 1974?

I hope that we shall do that very soon. We are in the process of doing it. I think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is helpful. The decline has levelled off. The idea that the changes in exploration were due to the PRT announcements is totally unfounded, since, in time, this is not entirely true. Unfortunately, part of the submission of the UKOOA is that that is the case. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen that they should look for reasons other than those asserted by the UKOOA.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current level of coal exploration.

Yes, Sir. The National Coal Board's exploration programme under Plan for Coal has proved very successful and is continuing at an intensive level.

In view of the large sums of money involved, would the Government be prepared to invite private industry to participate with the National Coal Board, in developing these resources, either on an exclusive or a joint-venture basis?

No, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we must never allow private industry to get hold of the best coal seams? As the nation is short of anthracite for domestic purposes, what is he doing to obtain more anthracite so that we can cater for this country's market without importing from abroad—for instance, from Spain?

My hon. Friend will recall that the National Coal Board has been developing new anthracite capacity. The Bettes colliery in South Wales will come into production soon and when it does it will mean that there will be less need to import anthracite.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with current supplies of energy for industry.

Yes, Sir.

To what extent is the United Kingdom self-sufficient in oil? When does my hon. Friend expect us to be totally self-sufficient and not dependent on supplies from Iran or elsewhere overseas?

We produced approximately 60 million tonnes of oil last year. That is approximately half to two-thirds of our requirement. We expect to be self-sufficient in oil by 1980. We are already self-sufficient in coal and natural gas and as we have good nuclear technology the Government's policies will bring this country to a unique position in energy self-sufficiency—something which is the envy of other Western industrial nations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the unique situation confronting my constituents? They alone in the Kingdom face an unacceptably high risk from the concentration of gas, chemical and oil storage. Is he also aware that they are anxious to know what consideration is being given by the Government to ceasing the importation of liquefied gases into this dangerous and vulnerable area?

Yes. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Do it now.

Does my hon. Friend agree that industry is only at the beginning of its energy-saving programme? Will he encourage industry to look further at methods of energy saving which could drastically change the situation over the next two or three decades?

Yes. We are aware that there is great potential for further increases in energy conservation. It is interesting to note in that respect that our recent energy conservation scheme, sponsored by the Department of Industry, has attracted more than 10,000 inquiries from British industry.

If the Minister is confident that supplies of oil will be satisfactory, despite cut-backs from Iran, can he estimate what effect any increased price of fuel oil will have on industry?

It is very difficult to make such estimates, as the hon. Member knows. I cannot hazard guesses as to what the outcome of the Iranian situation is likely to be. I am afraid that I cannot give an answer to that question at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will invite the Energy Commission to work out in detail a low energy strategy for the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the energy requirements of the British economy in 1990 and 2000, respectively; and what are the basic assumptions underlying those estimates.

Estimates of United Kingdom energy requirements to the end of the century were presented to Parlia- ment in last year's Green Paper on energy policy. The Energy Commission will be discussing my Department's latest forecasts at its next meeting. I intend that it should consider low energy strategies, which are also currently the subject of a special study by the energy technology support unit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that steady economic growth can be sustained with static or even diminishing energy consumption, given sensible technology? Will he discourage the Central Electricity Generating Board from a continuing programme of massive two gigawatt power stations, which are likely to be superfluous over the next decade?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that forecasts are the basis of all energy policy. That is why we are having a special meeting of the Commission to look at forecasts. However, we must be sure that the necessary energy is available, and theoretical models of very low energy consumption would have to be tested against the likely outcome by those who have experience of the matter. I am pleased that forecasts have now moved into the centre of public discussion about energy policy.

Has my right hon. Friend read the report of the International Institute for Environment and Development, which, based on assumptions of a 2 per cent. to 2½ per cent. economic growth rate during the next 20 years, arrives at the conclusion that, using existing energy conservation techniques, the United Kingdom's economy could be consuming the 1 million tonne equivalent of about 130 million tonnes less than the existing energy consumption projection? Can my right hon. Friend enlighten us on the colossal difference between the two estimates of which we now know, this one and that of his own Department?

I think that what my hon. Friend says about the importance of studying the low energy strategy is right. We are not only funding our own work on it, but Dr. Leach's work and that of his colleagues is of great interest. We must be sure before we build upon a low energy forecast, because it may be based upon certain assumptions which are themselves not sustainable, and we must also be careful that we do not look to a continuing slump to solve our energy problems. We must have a proper rate of growth for sustaining our economy.

At the blunt end of the energy-saving problem, is the Secretary of State satisfied that enough is still being done in large buildings, both public and private, to save on heating costs, particularly now, since we appear, at least for the moment, to have passed the very cold spell of weather?

That matter is for the Department of the Environment and not for me. However, I ask the House to consider that conservation takes some time to develop. I ask the House to remember the clean air legislation. If I remember the figures correctly, £70 million spent over 10 years gave us 70 per cent. more sunshine. While that was happening a lot of people thought that nothing was happening, but then they realised that something was happening.

Does my right hon. Friend remember outlining important areas of British energy policy where the European Commission was seeking to interfere? Has that desire to interfere quickened or lessened over recent months?

There are six areas in which three Commissioners are bringing their influence to bear on me. One is interest-relief grants; another is full and fair opportunity; another is the landing of gas; another is the landing of oil; and there are two others in the nuclear field. I have made clear in Brussels and elsewhere that I do not think that a European energy policy would be acceptable if it involved seeking to replace the control of Ministers accountable to Parlia- ments in any of the member States concerned.

I note the right hon. Gentleman's continuing hostility to the EEC. However, does he agree that, on the question of pollution, particularly oil pollution, there is a great deal to be said for working as closely as possible with our Community partners? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he personally is taking an interest in this matter and is co-ordinating the activities on pollution control not only with our EEC partners but with his ministerial colleagues?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's skilled mind has not somehow associated a defence of our national interests in energy with a preference for polluting the atmosphere by oil-fired power stations, because were he to do so he really would be exaggerating. Of course I am in favour of international agreement on pollution. Indeed, I have recently made it clear that I would not accept an oil-fired power station at Insworke Point. However, I hope that the Conservative Party would give support to any British Government who were trying to see that the House of Commons retained ultimate responsibility in these major areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whether the energy strategy be high, low or just evangelical, the key to the situation is a rational pricing policy, which is what is lacking?

I agree with my hon. Friend about pricing policy. He has often stressed this. But I think he will recognise that what he is urging is entirely incompatible with the other argument that is often urged, which is that Ministers should not interfere with the policies of nationalised industries. Both cannot be right—that each industry operates entirely as if it were privately owned, as some urge, and, at the same time, that I should be regularly urged to introduce a thermal parity pricing for energy, or whatever may be right. We must work steadily towards this. That is what the Energy Commission is doing and will continue to do.

May I say how much we on the Conservative Benches welcome the Secretary of State's rather latter-day conversion to the importance of conservation? If he is to continue his interest in this matter, will he lend his authority to trying to resolve some of the interdepartmental rows in the Government, and will he tell the House when he can get some agreement on improved regulations for building standards and on the question of appliance energy efficiency labelling?

I have announced the biggest programme in the whole of the EEC on energy conservation. I remind the House that the Conservative Party's plan for energy conservation was limited to the advice that we should brush our teeth in the dark.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with arrangements for industrial sponsorship of research at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell.

The day-to-day management of this research is primarily a matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, but my understanding is that it is conducted on a sound basis and that Harwell has a reputation for the quality of its work.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest report from the environmental and medical science division at Harwell on lead pollution concerns research at the London Westway wholly funded, 100 per cent., by Octel Limited, and that no mention of that is made on the face of the report? The report is now being used to intimidate three London parents to stop a court action against Octel Limited. Will my hon. Friend give instructions to Harwell that all reports that are funded by industry should clearly state that that is the case, so that people do not gain a false impression that it is public money that has gone into the production of such reports, which are then used for these very dubious purposes?

On the latter point, any work done by the AEA is not paid for out of the nuclear Vote. The Authority is self-financing and its full costs, includ- ing overheads, are borne by the bodies which sponsor it. The reason why they ask Harwell to do such things is the high reputation and integrity that Harwell has in dealing with these reports.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is now in a position to make a further statement as to the implications of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities dated 14 November 1978 in respect of article 103 of the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what cases are pending at the Court of the European Economic Community concerning the Euratom Treaty; and what significance they have for the control of atomic material and energy in the United Kingdom.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no cases pending at the European Court concerning the Euratom Treaty. A ruling concerning Community participation in the draft IAEA Convention on physical protection was handed down on 14 November 1978. We are still considering its implications, and I am not at present in a position to make a formal statement about it.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly be in a position to make such a statement, because there is considerable concern, certainly on the Labour Benches, that this ruling, handed down on 14 November, has serious implications for the ownership and control of our nuclear energy and, indeed, of our nuclear supplies. When can we expect the Government to have completed their consideration of this far-reaching ruling?

The Law Officers will have to consider the far-reaching nature of that ruling. My anxiety is that the Euratom Treaty could be interpreted in such a way as to say that all special fissile materials were the property of the Euratom Agency. If that were held to be the case—and we shall have to wait for the Law Officers to say what the meaning of it is—that would have very serious consequences indeed. I have seen Dr. Brunner and explained that some of his interpretations of chapter 6 of the Euratom Treaty are wholly unrealistic.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that not only is the question of the ownership of the fissile material called into question by this ruling, but that responsibility for security and policing of nuclear installations would apparently be transferred to Brussels and away from the control of this country? This ruling is quite fantastic in its implications if it is construed literally.

The immediate meaning of the ruling is that member States are not permitted to participate, unless the Commission or the Community itself does, in the physical protection of nuclear materials. But I do not have to tell the House that any interference with the responsibility of member States for the safety or ownership of certain nuclear materials would be very serious indeed. The Government are watching this with very keen interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now make a statement on the Government's intentions with respect to the National Nuclear Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he hopes to make a statement on the reoganisation of the National Nuclear Corporation and associated design and manufacturing enterprises.

I am still having discussions with the parties involved and am not yet in a position to make a formal statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this vacillation, probably on his part, is doing nothing to assist the British nuclear industry, either domestically or overseas? What can he tell the House today about the timing of the future programme? How much pressure can he bring to bear upon these organisations to present their plans, because, as he will understand, the industry is faced with a series of problems if he does not act positively?

I never thought that I would live to hear the Conservative Opposition demand that I should take firm action against the interlocking private shareholdings imposed on the industry by the Conservative Government and which I am trying to unravel. The arrangements made by the Conservative Government were quite unsatisfactory, and I am seeking to proceed by agreement. That is why the process is taking a bit of time. It requires agreement, unless the House is ready to legislate. All I can say is that those groups in the industry, both at Risley and Whetstone, whose views have been taken on the matter formally, are of the view, right up to the highest management level, that a majority holding in the public sector would be the best way to support the NNC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sir Arnold Weinstock, head of GEC—certainly the man with the greatest power there—is laying down certain demands for the restructuring of the industry? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will make these decisions, and not Sir Arnold Weinstock?

I do not think that it would be fair to reveal in the House discussions that I am having with Sir Arnold Weinstock, who was left, under the arrangements reached by the Conservative Government, with a command ownership role in the industry. I have enjoyed useful discussions with Sir Arnold on this matter, and I am of the view that a decision of this magnitude must be made by the Government. But in the absence of legislative power I have to seek to proceed by agreement, and that is what I am trying to do.

Quite apart from the role of private sector companies in this matter, have the right hon. Gentleman's proposals had the full support of all the nationalised industries concerned?

I am involved in discussion with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority. I am trying to reach a consensus, because that is the proper way to proceed. I have no legislative power to operate differently from that. This is a very important industry, and the way in which it has been structured leaves the Government very little scope except to proceed by discussion and agreement. I do not regret that—unless I am criticised for taking a long time to seek an agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council.

I keep in close touch with the chairman of the Electricity Council, and saw him last in November.

As there is increasing evidence that electricity is pricing itself out of the energy market because it converts its fuel so wastefully, will the right hon. Gentleman, when he next meets the Electricity Council, explain how the consumer will react to the further increase in electricity prices which must come, particularly if he does not support the chairman of the National Coal Board in the forthcoming wage negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman is a keen supporter of combined heat and power, and so am I. But he will also recognise that where there is a big capital investment in a particular series of large power stations it is not possible to shift overnight from a low percentage utilisation of primary fuel to the high percentage that combined heat and power would provide. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I and many other people have grave doubts about the early 1960s policy decision that the only thing to go for is massive power stations. Such a station is vulnerable. It can go out of action like Abenthaw B, which, I believe, has operated at only about 40 per cent. capacity since it was built, or Hunterston, where technical trouble led to loss of power for a year. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of combined heat and power, provided he recognises that it takes a little time to shift from one strategy to another and that it cannot be done overnight.

When my right hon. Friend met the chairman of the Electricity Council, did the chairman tell him of the increasing frustration of the Council that we have not yet got an electricity reorganisation Bill before the House? If my right hon. Friend did hear that from the chairman, will it help him with the discussions now going on, so that we can get a Bill before the House?

I am keen to get a Bill forward, and so is everyone with whom I have discussed it. The trouble is that there is no agreement about what such a Bill should say. Therefore, I am trying, by discussion with the Opposition—and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) who has been very cordial in the discussions we have had—to reach an agreement that would permit a Bill to get a Second Reading and go into Committee. But I cannot commit the hon. Gentleman, and I cannot even commit myself at this stage. It is our hope, however, that the Bill will proceed, because it is not in the interest of the industry that it should be a political football when what it needs, and has needed for many years, is a basic Act of Parliament giving it the power to reorganise, subject to general parliamentary supervision.

Before we turn to the questions to the Minister for Overseas Development I should like to express my gratitude to Ministers and hon. Members for their co-operation, because we have heard a lot more questions and answers.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if Her Majesty's Government are making any firm proposals for the revision of STABEX in the course of the Lome renegotiations now in progress.

We have agreed with our Community partners that in the renegotiation of Lome we should generally seek to consolidate the present scheme, and to define more closely its objectives. We have also suggested or supported certain technical changes which are now being considered in the Community before discussion with the ACP.

Have the Government considered that it might be more advantageous to put influence and money behind the development of the common fund, with possibly the IMF compensatory financing facility, rather than behind STABEX, which is limited both in resources and in scope?

My hon. Friend raises a very important question. Price stabilisation and earnings stabilisation are clearly related, but they serve different purposes. STABEX may be needed by the producers for reasons unconnected with price stability. It is certainly an important element within Lome, but it is geographically restricted, and the matters that my hon. Friend has raised are important. They should be taken into consideration. Indeed they are being given serious thought as being complementary to some of the work being done by STABEX.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain the paradox that both he and the Minister see the importance of STABEX, wish to expend and improve it, recognise the value of the Lome Convention—all of them EEC initiatives—and yet he and she are so anti-Common Market? Are they not in danger of talking with two tongues, both barbed?

That supplementary question reflects the abysmal ignorance of the hon. Gentleman. If he examines the records of those to whom he has referred he will find that their views do not coincide with the views attributed to them. I make no apology for having been a consistent pro-Marketeer, and I support a number of radical changes from our position inside. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether there is any conflict the answer is "No". We have given our full support to the arrangements being made within the Community for this very important process in developing an outward-looking Community.

asked the Minister of State for Overseas Development if she will seek to deduct funds owing to United Kingdom nationals from financial assistance to Zambia, either by means of an existing Act or by any other method.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether, in conjunction with the provision of aid to Zambia, there is an understanding that arrears of remittances to British subjects who have served in Zambia will be paid off.

I apologise if this answer is a shade longer than usual, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Minister aware that my constituent, a nurse who was in Zambia, is now confined to her wheelchair for the rest of her life and is expected to wait for up to eight years for full payment of the compensation awarded to her against the nationalised insurance industry in Zambia? Is she aware that similar cases have been made known to me from throughout the United Kingdom? In view of the Minister's statement on assistance to Zambia, will she take up the matter with the Zambian Embassy here to ensure that it makes prompt payments of these outstanding debts?

I am aware of and have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. I am happy to report that £25,000 of what she is due has already been remitted and that a further amount of nearly £4,000 has been authorised for payment in view of the especially compassionate nature of this case. The rest—the minimum of the amount—will be remitted at the rate of approximately £1,100 annually. I do everything that I can to persuade the Zambian authorities. In the end, the best hope that we have of getting money to British citizens so affected is by giving the assistance to Zambia that we are giving.

Does the Minister agree that her first duty is to seek to ease the financial hardship of the many thousands of British subjects who contributed their skills to Zambia in the past and who face long delays in obtaining their remittances? I welcome the fact that there is at least an implied understanding between Britain and Zambia and that in the provision of economic assistance to the Zambians the Government will seek to speed up the release of frozen assets. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept that the situation remains serious and that delays are extremely long? Will she give top urgency to holding discussions with the Zambian Government about speeding up the matter?

We shall certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman may be in no doubt about that. The difficulty is that the only way that the Zambians can do it is on the basis of the free foreign exchange that we provide to them through our aid. We are limited. Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are bound by the Overseas Aid Act which provides aid money through the authority of Parliament for the purpose of promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the welfare of its people. Some constituents, who have been writing to some hon. Members, have not understood that, and that is understandable. There is nothing that we can do under the Overseas Aid Act to use aid money directly to assist people here. However, we hope that the Zambian Government will use the foreign exchange provided to them through our aid to speed up the payments for some of the considerable cases of hardship that arise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that however sad some of these cases may be—especially the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman—the Zambian Government are generally sympathetic and sensitive to these matters? Does she agree that everything possible should be done to sustain and nurture the friendship with the Government of Zambia, one of our best friends in Southern Africa?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is exactly the point that I seek to make. The more we can provide assistance to Zambia in this critical economic situation that they face the more the Zambians are likely to be able to provide the compensation—the money —that a number of British citizens feel is due to them.

One of my constituents has a claim against the now defunct East African Harbours Board. It is an acknowledged claim, which the Governments concerned refused to pay. In the interests of ensuring that British nationals go to these countries to help and assist—as indeed it is our contribution so to do—can the Government do nothing about these logical claims that are acknowledged?

No, we cannot do so with those claims. We are making a great many efforts—some of which have been partly successful—to restore the relationship within the East African community, which broke up several years ago. That caused many difficulties for many people. However, we cannot pay anything to these people out of aid funds. We can try to ease and restore some relationships. However, one of the members of the East African community is Uganda. It is very difficult. Nor would I wish to persuade either Tanzania or Kenya to enter into the kind of relationships with Uganda that might resolve all the situations.

Although sympathising with the individuals affected by the decisions taken by the Government of Zambia, will my right hon. Friend be sympathetic to the Zambian Government because of the financial difficulties they are in as a result of maintaining sanctions against the illegal regime in Rhodesia, which we want to put right?

That is why we have taken exceptional measures to assist the Government of Zambia. There has been the £20 million copper purchase and the £20 million loan programme arrangements. We are entering into project assistance to Zambia. There is no doubt that the Zambian economy needs every help that we can give it.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action her Department is taking to inform the public about the official aid programme and the purposes which it is intended to serve.

In 1978 over 50 speaking engagements were arranged for my right hon. Friend, myself and officials; 268 press notices and 34 publications were issued; and our paper "Overseas Development" was distributed to over 9,000 regular readers. We are now expanding the readership to 30,000.

Is the Minister aware of the recent study commissioned by his Department into public attitudes on overseas development, which showed that about one in five of the sample had neither heard nor read anything about the conditions in developing countries, and that the levels of wealth in those countries were over-estimated by some three-and-a-half times and that when people were told the true facts the proportion of those opposed to overseas aid reduced dramatically? Will he redouble his efforts to see that the information campaign is more successful?

I thoroughly agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend commissioned this report. It was published on 29 December 1978. It was placed in the Library of the House of Commons. It would be beneficial for a number of hon. Members to read that report.

Will the Council for International Development be reconvened, or will it be allowed to wither away?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Council for International Development exists. Plans are now in hand for its next meeting.

Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to clarify a point which might be useful? In administering the aid programme, does the Department regard it as one of its purposes to assist British exporters, including exporters in the private sector? Is the Department prepared to authorise the expenditure of aid on infrastructure projects where such projects may be critical in securing contracts for British exporters?

Although that supplementary question does not arise directly from the main question, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will go out rejoicing and shouting from the rooftops that the bilateral aid programme of this country results in about £290 million worth of exports from British industry. The most reliable estimate we have is that about 50,000 people in employment in the United Kingdom are working on projects financed exclusively from our aid programme.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much aid the United Kingdom has given to India during 1978; and how much it is proposed to give during the year 1979.

Total expenditure in the calendar year 1978 is provisionally estimated at £117 million. I cannot give a firm estimate for expenditure in 1979, but would expect it to be significantly higher.

Whilst I welcome that reply, will my right hon. Friend also encourage in any way she can the giving of voluntary asistance—for example, by the scheme proposed by the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Mr. Babhubai Patel, for the sponsoring or adoption of villages in India by Asian communities or others in this country anxious to help those who are desperately deprived?

As my hon. and learned Friend may know, we have our pound for pound scheme. If any community organisation in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency wishes to put forward a proposal whereby my Ministry could provide 50 per cent. of the cost of anything that that organisation might wish to do, it must get in touch with the Ministry. We shall be very glad to help. We now have a pretty good aid programme to India, involving mobile health clinics and many things that are relevant to the poorest people in India. We are anxious to help with any voluntary scheme that anyone might propose.

Does the Minister recall the strong citicism of the Government's decision to supply ships to India out of the aid budget, a form of aid that has nothing to do with helping the needy in India but is helping to subsidise employment in this country? Is a similar deal presently being arranged with the Government of Pakistan?

That raises another issue, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will put a question down to me. There is a certain confusion here. We are talking in our aid strategy about poorest countries and poorest people. India is one of the poorest countries. It also contains many of the poorest people. If one of the development priorities of one of the poorest countries is ships, there is nothing irrational and nothing inconsistent with our aid strategy in providing them. We must distinguish between poorest countries and poorest people and see where they fit together.

Can my right hon. Friend explain the reasons for the shortfall in the take-up of aid by India, a shortfall that amounts to about £35 million in the past five years, about half of which has arisen in the past financial year?

My hon. Friend has written to me about this matter and I am in the course of replying to him. I visited India in July 1977, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade visited India a little later. There have been problems. I think that we now have most of them sorted out, and I have every expectation that the aid programme to India will be, if not absolutely fully spent, at least much better spent than in the last years.

The Minister has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). What has the provision of £53 million in aid in the years 1978 and 1979 for the construction of six subsidised cargo ships in Sunderland to do with the alleviation of poverty in India?

I must emphasise that India is one of the poorest countries. One of its problems is a shortage of foreign exchange. If India believes that amongst its development priorities having ships will assist its foreign exchange and resources, there is nothing inconsistent in what we are doing.