asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the date when North Sea oil reserves will be exhausted.

It is not practicable to give a date for the exhaustion of reserves as this depends on future rates of discovery and extraction, but I expect production to continue well into the next century.

Is the Secretary of State not aware that in the next century we shall be an impoverished nation without any oil? Does he intend to preside over this squandering of our valuable resources without doing anything to ensure that energy conservation is higher on the agenda than it is now?

There are questions on the Order Paper relating to the broad question of energy conservation. When the hon. Gentleman hears the facts he will realise that conservation is making a major contribution to energy policy. There are two sides to the question of the exhaustion of oil reserves. One is exploration, to encourage future discoveries, and the other is good oilfield practice and management of oil resources, to see that they last. These are being carefully handled, consistent with our major national interest.

Is my right hon. Friend looking at other sources of energy? Is he satisfied with the rate of study of a major project, the Severn barrage?

That is a different question. The Department finances an examination of a whole range of alternatives, including the Severn barrage feasibility study, which is going ahead.

Does not the Secretary of State believe that one of the roots of the problem of developing a proper depletion policy is the reckless manner in which the Varley assurances were given several years ago? What countenance has the Department of Energy taken of the fact that the United Kingdom will be importing 50 per cent. of its oil requirement by 1995? Does not that show that a depletion policy is badly needed?

The Varley assurances stand, and have been reaffirmed by this Government. The root of the problem in predicting and managing our North Sea resources is the vast uncertainty on both the production and the development and exploration side. These matters must be approached with prudence and flexibility in order to get the best results and to maintain self-sufficiency for the nation.

Is my right hon. Frend satisfied with the exploration aspect? It seems to me important to find out what are the reserves. To what extent are private industry and the Government working together to make some assessment of future resources?

The Government and private industry are working in co-operation. The seventh round is a reflection of both the Government's determination and industry's willingness to get ahead with exploration so that we know the extent of our North Sea reserves and can move to development and production in a sensible manner, consistent with maintaining our self-sufficiency as far ahead as possible.

When will the Secretary of State tell the industry that he does not wish to see it export all the peak production projected for the years 1982 to 1987 and that he hopes that it will conserve this energy and spread it? Will the Secretary of State, in order to give an assurance for the future, drop his vendetta against BNOC and tell the House that having failed to get legislative time to split the BNOC, he will not split the BNOC and will not float and BNOC shares on the Stock Exchange?

On the second point, we are pressing ahead with our plans for the improved reorganisation of BNOC.

Shame.

These will be consistent with allowing the public a wider share in what is already theirs. The right hon. Gentleman's first question related to depletion policy. I have begun discussions with the industry and I expect to make a statement on depletion policy to the House in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent consultations he has had with the National Coal Board concerning future investment in the industry.

I am considering the board's capital investment programme in the normal way, but have yet to discuss it with the board.

Do not the figures, which show output up to 109 million tonnes and productivity up almost 4 per cent. last year, justify the level of investment in the industry in recent years, despite the carping criticism of a number of Conservative Members? Are not the miners and the National Coal Board to be heartily congratulated on such a splendid performance? In those circumstances, will the Minister assure the House that when he has the discussions with the board there will be no pressure from the Government for a cutback in investment?

The Government have consistently made that clear. We have congratulated the coal industry, time and again from this Box, and I do so again with pleasure. Equally, the Government have made it clear in the announcement of their new stategy for coal, implied on First Reading of the Bill, that productive investment has been, and will be, continued and that we expect the nation to gain from that productive investment in our coal industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are showing great confidence in the future of a competitive coal industry by their additional finance for modernisation, redundancies and the pneumoconiosis scheme?

Absolutely. The investment that we are now talking about for the rest of the period up to 1983–84 amounts to £600 million-plus a year. It is a sizeable investment in our productive industry. If we are to gain from the markets of the future, and if we are to retain the markets that we now have, our coal industry must be competitive and profitable. Happily, that is the route that it is taking.

Will the Minister accept that, in addition to investment in the coalmining industry to produce coal, more money should be spent on obtaining by-products from coal? Does he agree that it is time that we started building chemical plants beside some of our large coalfields, to take advantage of those by-products? Does it not also mean that to close chemical byproducts plants without replacing them will not be to the good of the industry as a whole?

I am sure that all hon. Members will have noticed reports in the press in the last week on the world coal study discussions and seen the exciting opportunities for coal, not just in chemical feedstocks, but in SNG and liquefaction. The Government are seriously involved. I chaired the third meeting of the research and development tripartite committee last week, which considered such areas. Obviously when the next stage of decision is ready, at liquefaction, it must be viewed with the seriousness that such long-term markets will have for this country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome the strong support that he and the Secretary of State have given to the coal industry since the Government came to power? Will he go further and ensure that we do everything possible to open up a European market or markets for British coal via sensible EEC schemes?

Crucial to being able to avail ourselves of the European market is that we have a competitive and profitable coal industry. My hon. Friend will be aware of my right hon. Friend's initiative, currently on the table in Europe, for improved production capacity for our European coal industry. As the prime producer of coal in the Community, we seek to gain from that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Gas about his energy-saving campaign.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairman of British Gas on 1 April, when the corporation's energy conservation campaign was among the subjects discussed.

Bearing in mind the need to balance one energy supply with another, and also the energy savings campaign to which my hon. Friend has referred, is it not somewhat illogical for the British Gas Corporation to spend large sums of money on selling and advertising gas?

The British Gas Corporation is not spending large amounts of money each year on advertising gas. Its advertising has been cut back, and is now confined to conservation and appliances. There is no advertising for domestic consumption generally. The advertising for appliances is not geared to the domestic central heating market, which is 85 per cent. of the domestic market.

When the Minister met the chairman, did he give him assurances that in no way would the British Gas Corporation be inhibited from playing a major part in the gas-gathering system at present under discussion?

That matter does not arise out of this question, and it was not the subject of the meeting.

My hon. Friend will remember the conversion programme to North Sea gas which the British Gas Corporation carried out so effectively. Does he agree that the need for conservation and insulation is now so great that it would be worth while considering the possibility of getting the corporation to carry out a national programme to insulate homes on the same basis?

There is force in what my hon. Friend has said. He will know that the British Gas Corporation advertises and sells insulation material and that it is anxious to demonstrate to people the great savings that can result from energy conservation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline the timetable for proceeding with the public inquiry on the pressurised water reactor.

My right hon. Friend will announce the date of the inquiry in due course. The CEGB has not yet applied for consent. Timing will depend on a number of factors, including completion of necessary work on safety clearance.

How will the Government monitor the cost of the PWR power station and the time scale for construction so that we can get some idea of comparative performance with the AGR stations, which are about to be ordered as well?

On both aspects the industry keeps us informed of the details of projects both as regards cost and time, and we shall be acutely interested to see how it is developing on the PWR as well. We are engaged in discussions about the different stages that must be gone through on both design and safety work before construction can start. We are working out the precise timetable for that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in any discussion about a PWR, or any other kind of reactor programme, forecasts of electricity demand are crucial to a sensible assessment of the situation? Does he also agree that the industry's predictions about electricity demand seem to be shifting and that it might be in order for the Government to publish a White Paper on the subject in the fairly near future?

My hon. Friend is right about electricity demand being crucial. He knows that that was one of the factors that led to the review of the two AGRs. However, after considering it, we decided that it was right to confirm the investment approval that was given to the two AGRs. We are in the process of reexamining the forecasts. My hon. Friend will be aware that the energy projections are revised each year in the light of economic conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the implications for future oil supplies of recent developments in the Middle East.

We expect the market to be roughly in balance this year, even allowing for some further production cuts by OPEC. But the balance is fragile and could be upset at any time, for example, through political developments in producing countries.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Saudi Arabia is producing an extra 1 million barrels of oil a day to help to stabilise the world price of oil. Is he confident that this extra oil will continue to be produced beyond June when that commitment officially comes to an end?

There can be no certainty about levels of world oil production. Saudi Arabian production has been maintained at this higher level for a year now, and that has obviously contributed towards maintaining the supply-demand balance that I have described and offsetting to some extent, but not entirely, the upward drive from nerve buying for oil, even though the demand is not there, simply to increase stocks. The Saudi Arabian extra 1 million barrels of oil a day have helped the matter, and I hope that that will be maintained.

Does the Cabinet agree with those commentators in the Royal Institute of International Affairs and elsewhere who see a real danger of action against Iran involving reaction by the Saudis and other Arabs who, in the final analysis, might show solidarity with Iran?

I am not sure that that is an immediate question about oil, although it is related to oil since the availability of oil is near the heart of the Middle East and Iranian problems. The general answer that I must give is that there are grave dangers in the Persian Gulf and in the oil-producing areas all the time. We must plan our supplies and energy future on the assumption that there will be political upsets and constant upward pressures in the oil market.

In view of the uncertainties and instability in the Middle East, what new measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind to encourage even more exploration in the North Sea?

The new measures that we have in mind are strongly reflected in the seventh round of licences, which has recently been announced and for which applications will be taken and awards made towards the end of the year. I am confident that with this new round and with additional incentives to explore in existing territory we shall see a substantial move forward in exploration. In fact, we have already seen a halt to the years of decline in exploration drilling. The mood is changing, and I think that we shall see a continued improvement in exploration.

Is the Minister aware that although it takes five weeks for a tanker to get from Saudi Arabia to Britain, it took the oil companies two days only to put up the price of oil last week? The Saudis put up the price by 2½p a gallon approximately on Thursday and the oil companies put up the price by 4p on Saturday. What action does the Minister intend to take to end this closed shop of big brothers who are holding the motorist to ransom?

I do not know whether the hon. Member knows the North of England. If he does, he will know that in a number of areas there is strong competition at the pumps, and that competition is taking pence off the price of a gallon of petrol at the pump. The hon. Gentleman will realise that if he drives around his own constituency. The recent price rises announced by some companies—though not all—are not connected with the Saudi Arabian oil price change. They reflect the higher cost of oil working through the pipeline all the time. Those are the factors that are driving up the price, and we in Britain cannot be insulated from the higher price of energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has had representations from industry on the need to make available more regular supplies of gas.

My right hon. Friend and I have had representations from industry about a number of issues relating to gas supplies.

Does my hon. Friend understand that, apart from the increase in gas prices, which has placed a heavy burden on costings in industry, there is far greater concern about the availability of gas? Firms seeking to expand, particularly those in my constituency, have been unable to obtain supplies of gas for that purpose. Can my hon. Friend do anything about that?

I understand the concern of my hon. Friend. Because gas is so much cheaper than competing fuels, there has been a run away demand for it. In the next four years British Gas intends to supply an extra 1 billion therms to the industrial market. It also intends to invest .4,000 million on extra transmission and various other projects to increase supplies. But it takes time to increase supplies of gas. We continue to discuss this matter with British Gas.

Does the Minister agree that as well as availability, the price of gas is of equal importance? Surely it is inconsistent with Government policy, which is to create the right climate for industry, to impose swingeing increases and then cream off the money as a means of back-door taxation.

The pricing policy adopted by the British Gas Corporation under this Administration is the same as the pricing policy that was followed previously, namely, that in the industrial market the price of gas should be related to the competing oil product. We intend to introduce the gas levy because there is a strong element of the economic rent of the monopoly profit in those figures. That is why we have done that.

Has the Minister read the observation of the Chemical Industries Association about attempts to increase the supply of natural gas from the continental shelf and, in selected zones, to allow the free distribution of gas by the companies concerned and not by the British Gas Corporation?

I admire the persistence of my hon. Friend. I think that he asked me about that in the debate last Wednesday. I confirmed to him that we were aware of the observation and were studying it urgently.

Is the Minister aware that a junior Minister said at the weekend that gas prices would increase tenfold in the foreseeable future? Can the Minister give any justification for that statement?

I have not seen the text of any such speech, and I do not think that it is likely that gas prices will increase tenfold. Obviously, the trend of all fossil fuel prices is likely to be upward in the foreseeable future.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding his announcement of a nuclear power generating construction programme; and if he is satisfied that the programme is technically and economically feasible.

I regularly receive representations about our nuclear programme from the public, Members of Parliament and those concerned with the industry. There is a strong economic case for nuclear power, and I believe that our nuclear industry will meet the challenge that our programme represents.

Will the Minister confirm that in 1979 there was the lowest average number of nuclear installation inspections for seven years? Will he confirm also that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is well below strength and that it cannot possibly cope with an expanded programme? Does the Minister agree that the programme that he announced was for two purposes: first, to satisfy the nuclear ambitions of Sir Arnold Weinstock and GEC and, secondly, to attack the mining industry. and in particular the miners?

The hon. Gentleman's last two observations are pure fantasy and do not deserve a serious reply. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's serious question about the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is that there are 17 vacancies out of a total theoretical establishment of 104. There have been no further resignations in 1980. There has recently been a pay increase, which will increase pay at all grades by about £2,000 per annum. Clearly the strength of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is extremely important to us. We are working on it, and are engaged in discussions about it. The inspectorate is vital for the nuclear programme, and it is nonsense to say that the programme cannot go ahead with the level of inspectorate manpower as it stands.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the programme is to be technically and economically feasible in those areas where nuclear power stations are likely to be sited the period of waiting and wondering whether there is to be a proposal should be as short as possible? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, bring as much pressure as possible to bear on the CEGB to announce its plans as quickly as possible and not hold up discussions in affected areas?

I know what my hon. Friend is referring to. I have discussed the case that he has in mind with the CEGB. He will be aware that the CEGB has a bank of sites and that it does not always apply immediately for planning permission or consent for a station on those sites. However, I shall communicate his concern to the CEGB.

Will the Minister give an assurance that nuclear inspection will be kept firmly under the control of the Government? Will he confirm that outside agencies will not be employed as supervisors?

The inspectorate is an independent agency, and that position will continue.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the programme will not be economically or technically feasible unless there is a major improvement in the organisation of the industry, and that the appointment of a new chairman to the National Nuclear Corporation is but a first step towards that objective?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem is not confined to the construction of nuclear power stations, as recent events have sadly emphasised. There are serious construction delays and cost overruns in conventional and oil-fired power stations as well. We need to strengthen the management further beyond the appointment of a chairman, and he is working on that. We hope that the announcement of a programme will, at long last, encourage confidence in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Enegry if he will now make a statement on depletion policy for British oil and gas resources.

I am at present holding discussions with the industry and expect to make a statement on depletion policy shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is some urgency about this matter, as the speed of the depletion programme is critical to the development of the coal and nuclear industries and all other aspects of energy? We must have an answer soon.

I accept that we must soon get this matter clear, and that is why I intend to make a statement in a few weeks.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in relation to the depletion policy, United Kingdom oil belongs to the United Kingdom and will be used for the benefit of the United Kingdom? Will he confirm also that no commitment has been, or will be, made to give United Kingdom oil to Common Market countries, without discretion being left fully with the United Kingdom Government?

Yes, I can give that confirmation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect any instance where reserves of energy sources have not been grossly underestimated? If the current estimates have continuously to be revised upwards, will not many current policies, in all parts of the United Kingdom, also need to be revised?

The uncertainties are undoubtedly great, particularly in the mining and extractive industries. That fact re-emphasises the need to keep all questions of depletion and management of these resources in the most flexible state. That is the policy adopted by the companies concerned, and that is the attitude of the Government.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that last year British companies won about 80 per cent. of all the oil contracts in the North Sea? Is not that a splendid achievement for British industry? How do we hope to improve in the areas where we are weakest, namely, exploration and drilling?

The figure for last year was 79 per cent. That was an excellent performance. I believe that we can do as well this year, or even improve on that, but that depends upon competitiveness in our yards operating under full and fair opportunities against strong foreign competition. Nevertheless, 79 per cent. is not bad.

Does the Secretary of State agree that while we continue to flare vast quantities of gas off our shores we must make an urgent decision on the gas-gathering pipeline scheme? In view of the increase in energy prices, does the Secretary of State agree that it is viable for a gas-gathering scheme to be financed by the United Kingdom and to be confined to the United Kingdom gasfields?

I am sure that with the price of energy as it is, the gas-gathering scheme is viable. I am not sure whether the advantages of taking gas from other than United Kingdom gasfields can be dismissed. They might be important. In general, the Government recognise the importance of the project, its worthwhile nature, its profitability and its benefit to the national interest. We are pressing ahead with it as fast as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to decide whether future nuclear power stations, to be built in Great Britain, after those already announced, should be of the pressurised water, gas-cooled or of some other type.

As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement of 18 December, decisions about the choice of reactor for later orders will be taken in due course.

I understand my hon. Friend's problems, which stem, as much as anything, from decisions which should have been taken not being taken in previous years. However, will he accept that it is necessary for the future of our energy resources that the decisions are made as soon as is prudently practical.

Of course that is so. However, to be sure about the benefits of the pressurised water reactor we have to build one to see whether the claims made about costs are correct. We are continuing to maintain both options. Without the AGR option there would be no work for that part of the construction industry. That is why we must have the two options.

When considering whether we need any nuclear stations, does the Minister agree that the critical parameter is the success or otherwise of the insulation programmes? What is the Government's assumption of the success as a percentage of the reduction in total electricity energy demand, of the insulation programme over the next decade?

The demand for electricity is a key factor in deciding what investment should be made in the supply of nuclear electricity. Our projections, published last year, assumed that by energy conservation, including a large degree of insulation, by the year 2000 demand for energy would be reduced by 20 per cent. below that which it would otherwise be.

Since it has taken 16 years to produce 1½ gigawatts of generating capacity through the AGR system, would it not be sensible to sort out that system—if it can be sorted out—before launching into another system?

The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that although the record of nuclear power stations, through cost-overruns and delays in construction, has been poor—as it has been for every other type of power station—fossil fuel costs have risen. That still leaves a strong economic case for the nuclear stations, even after allowing for the delays.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association regarding the arrangements for the seventh round of offshore licensing, announced by him on 1 May.

The United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association raised with me a number of matters on the seventh offshore licensing round, including its size, the introduction of the cash element, the exercise of petroleum options and methods and conditions of licensing. These matters were discussed in detail with the association and fully considered in reaching our decisions on the round.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Will he confirm that the Government's intention is to announce the seventh round awards, in order to permit preliminary seismic work to take place during the summer drilling season?

No, it is not possible to reach that timetable. The applications will come in first. I cannot give a precise closing date for the applications, but it will probably be about August. I expect awards to be announced in the autumn and towards the end of the year. That will be in time to get sufficient exploration and seismic work going on a good path next year.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report in the Sunday Express that a number of oil millionaires have been created as a result of North Sea oil exploration? Will he ensure that in future the community has the full benefit of North Sea oil?

Our tax system is fair and brings substantial benefit to the Revenue. I see no great harm in having millionaires. Indeed, if their millions are earned through enterprise and the creation of jobs and wealth for many other people, they are a positive virtue to our society.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy to what degree the energy conservation policy of Her Majesty's Government is proving effective.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with progress in his energy conservation campaign.

There is evidence that consumers are responding to our energy conservation campaign. The downward trend in energy consumption seen towards the end of 1979 is continuing in 1980.

I accept that the previous Administration's energy conservation programme did not work as effectively as it should, but can my hon. Friend give further details of the results of the measures implemented in the last year?

In looking for short-term results, we must try to recognise the nature of the long-term changes. I do not wish to hang statistics on the few months that we have been in office, but primary energy consumption early in 1979 was rising compared with 1978. In the last quarter, seasonally adjusted and temperature corrected, it was lower than in the year before. Oil consumption in the last quarter was 4.7 per cent. down. These trends are continuing markedly into 1980.

Does my hon. Friend consider that his energy conservation programmes are having an effect on the private motoring sector? Alternatively, as reported in the national press, have petrol sales to private motorists gone up by 7 per cent. in the past year?

I was talking about seasonally adjusted figures. Today's papers talk of petrol sales being on the upswing. If one examines the statistics, as an ex-London School of Economics graduate should, one finds that although the figures are not yet seasonally adjusted, motor spirit represents only 22 per cent. of all oil products.

The figures for all oil products for the first quarter are not seasonally adjusted, and are down 15 per cent. That is a clear indication of the effective working of the Government's energy conservation policies.

Is not the drop in demand for primary energy due more to the recession than to any Government measures for conservation? Will the Minister confirm or deny that the Department of Energy is under pressure from the Prime Minister to spend even less on energy conservation than is being spent now?

The Labour Party has more experience of recessions than I do. If one examines the data carefully, one can see the radical reductions in prime energy consumption in areas where adjustments can be made. We are talking about a long and difficult job. For example, gas-oil used by industry for space heating in the first quarter of this year was down 16.3 per cent. There is no point in going into the gutter area of leak politics. We must deal with facts.

Today, or later this week, will my hon. Friend have a word with the Department of the Environment about speeding up new building regulations which can help to conserve energy? Does he agree that that is one of the weaknesses of the programme, although he sets an exemplary example?

The House will welcome the Department of the Environment's consultation document and will recognise the valuable part in conservation that the new building regulations can play. The proposals are for minimum limits. Consultation is taking place on the 80mm suggestion and the Department of Energy's request for 100mm to be considered. When talking about minimum regulations and consultation, we should see what the final conclusion is before we make up our minds. We are talking about a 50 per cent. increase in the Department of the Environment's minimum recommendations.

Is the Minister aware that the cuts in the housing investment programme for local authorities will drastically reduce their capacity to help? Does he recognise that the fecklessness displayed by his right hon. Friend this afternoon, in seeking to encourage motorists to drive around in the forlorn hope of finding cheaper petrol, will not help? Is he aware that rural residents and those who use motorways are grossly disadvantaged by the policies of the Conservative Administration?

In reply to your constant requests, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the first part of the question, which relates to the supposed reduction in the housing insulation grant allocation. There have been allocations matching the take-up of last year. I should have thought that those concerned with reductions in public expenditure and with the wise use of public money would regard that as a rational and sensible way to spend public money.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a helpful move in energy conservation in the commercial sector would be to amend the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 to reduce the minimum temperatures required by statute?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Energy is in the midst of consultations on that subject.

Is the Minister aware that at the beginning of this month many cities changed political control? Does he recognise that one of the reasons for the poor take-up of insulation grants last year was that Conservative councils would not spend the extra cash? We now have Labour councils that will spend the cash. Will he make more money available to the councils?

Will the hon. Gentleman stop saying that there is a conservation policy simply because energy consumption has fallen due to unemployment, a mild winter and priee increases, which do not add up to a conservation policy?

The hon. Gentleman continues to make the fundamental mistake of failing to recognise that conservation success is judged not by changes in Government-spend programmes, but by long-term changes in people's attitudes to the demand for energy. Those programmes are succeeding, and their success is baffling to the Opposition. The fundamental policies of the Government are succeeding in reducing primary energy consumption.

asked the Secretary of of State for Energy what is his policy, in the light of the Iranian situation, as regards making United Kingdom oil more readily available to the European Economic Community, particularly West Germany, in view of that country's greater dependence on Iranian oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to discuss with the European Economic Community Energy Ministers the question of preferential access to North Sea oil for other member States of the European Economic Community.

The Government have already made clear both to the House and to our Community partners that they expect oil companies exporting North Sea oil to sell it in markets of our partners in the Community and the International Energy Agency, except where there is an existing pattern of trade outside those regions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the problem becomes more acute every day? Coincidental with settling other Community problems and getting the Community constructively to move forward again, would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to offer our EEC partners greater long-term access to our North Sea oil and gas than he has been able to do to date?

My hon. Friend should not overlook the considerable quantities of North Sea oil already going to the markets of our EEC partners. About half of our exports go to our EEC partners' oil and petrol markets. We make a substantial contribution already. Much the best contribution that we could make in future would be to manage our North Sea oil resources in accordance with the best oilfield practice. We must ensure that production is maintained to the highest standards, and with maximum efficiency. In that way we can make a contribution to the overall production of energy in the EEC.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although there is support for helping our EEC partners to maintain the continuity of their oil supplies, there will be no support for selling North Sea oil to them at below market prices or entering into long-term contracts other than on a fully commercial basis?

I confirm my hon. Friend's remarks.

Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to retain full control of depletion and trading pattern policies, and that he will not allow the agreement for a 500 million tonnes per day import target set by the EEC to lead to an expansion of our depletion policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that the Prime Minister will not trade off our oil interests in an attempt to achieve a better deal on the EEC budget?

On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that our budget contribution will be decided on its merits, and that it will not be linked with other issues—whether this or any other. On the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I think that he confused the figure. I think that he was referring to the 5 million tonne export target, which we have agreed as part of our overall targets for oil imports for the EEC until 1985. I gladly confirm that that is in no way influenced by, and in no way influences, our freedom to decide our depletion policies in line with our national interest.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action has been taken to diminish the loss of £110,743 for 1978–79 on the operation of the private dining rooms in the House.

I have been asked to reply.

In accordance with the policy of the Catering Sub-Committee to reduce the loss not only on the Private Dining Rooms, but the whole Refreshment Department, substantial increases in the prices on drinks were agreed upon in February, and it has been agreed that further increases should be introduced after the Whitsun recess. These will apply to drink and food. I am hopeful that by the end of this financial year, the trading year ending 1981, we shall show a substantial trading profit for the first time.

Because of the loss of more than £100,000, is it not scandalous that the Catering Sub-Committee should try to keep bookings secret—possibly to protect those hon. Members who are parliamentary advisers to outside organisations? That means that the taxpayer has been benefiting public relations organisations through the enormous losses of the Private Dining Rooms. If the loss it to be brought to an end, why not put the matter completely above board and make bookings open to the public and to hon. Members?

I do not think that the question of secrecy will make the slightest difference to our profit and loss account. For as long as can be remembered it has been the custom that the Catering Sub-Committee does not publish the names of the organisers of functions. The Sub-Committee agrees in many respects with the hon. Gentleman's remarks and would deprecate any use of the Dining Rooms that would be likely to bring the House into disrepute. I do not think that the Catering Sub-Committee is likely to change its views on a matter that has been discussed ad nauseam.

Will the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee confirm that the huge loss in the year in question, and the arguable profits in the current year, were achieved without paying anything for rates, rent, insurance, heat, gas, light, repairs or renewal? Will he say how long it has been since a new appointment at senior managerial level has been effected in the Catering Department?

I have greater admiration for the hon. Gentleman when I see him on television than I do when I listen to his questions, which are irrelevant to the difficulties in the Catering Department, of which he, if anyone, should be fully aware.

On several occasions I have given the Commission an assurance that, with the arrangement that has been agreed by the whole House, we shall show a trading profit at the end of the financial year. If the hon. Gentleman requires all the details for which he has asked, I shall be happy to furnish him with them.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Catering Sub-Committee is using in the Catering Department only the best industrial practices which apply to every outside organisation. There is nothing special about the arrangements that we have made for trying to run the Catering Department properly for the first time in a long time.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the pay and conditions of those who work in the Catering Department have recently received a long overdue improvement? Is he aware that if the improved pay and conditions are the cause of the price increases, many of us will consider that a good cause?

It is significant that at the commencement of this Parliament the Catering Department faced a disgraceful inheritance from the previous Administration, namely, a debt of £3 million. Whatever steps we take, they cannot possibly be as bad as the steps that were taken in the past. I assure the House that, thanks to the Leader of the House and to the Commission, the staff of the Catering Department have, for the first time, been rewarded and given a pension, of which they have been deprived by Opposition Members over the years.

rose —

Order. I am afraid that we have run out of time for these questions. However, I will allow one minute extra later during Question Time so that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) can ask his question now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. Gentleman continues on the line that he has taken with the House, will he take into account the fact that a member of his party was Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee before the election? When he speaks as he did about the way that these matters were conducted previously, is he answering for all the other members of his Committee? Will he take into account that if he answers questions in that manner he will not have a Kitchen Committee left?

I am sorry to say that, not having previously answered any questions in the House, I have few hon. Members who attend the Kitchen Committee anyway. The untiring efforts of Labour Members to make difficult the work of almost the only attender of meetings of the Kitchen Committee are succeeding. I owe a special debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean). With few exceptions, he and I run it together. We are doing our best in a difficult job, which has been recognised as difficult for many years. It is sad that Opposition Members cannot be more helpful.

I shall have to allow two minutes extra.

Later —

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall the somewhat partisan outburst by the Chairman of the Services Sub-Committee, and you will no doubt recall that for the previous five years the Chairman of that Sub-Committee was a Conservative Member. You, Mr. Speaker, are not normally responsible for answers that are given, but in this case there is a connection, in that the answers should be solely concerned with the facts and the information that is sought. As I understand it, the Sub-Committee is responsible to the House of Commons Commission, and the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission is yourself. Therefore, if there is an attempt to put a smokescreen of partisan abuse around replies when hon. Members are seeking information, it can reflect on you, Mr. Speaker. The fact that you, as Chairman, are ultimately responsible is an indication that this is fundamentally a House of Commons matter rather than a partisan matter.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the question was not addressed to the right hon. Member who answers for the House of Commons Commission. It was a question addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If it was the responsibility of the Commission in this case, the point should have been addressed to the right hon. Member who answers for the House of Commons Commission.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied with the means of access to the Palace of Westminster for the disabled.

Yes, but I will, of course, welcome suggestions for any improvement to the existing arrangements.

Will the Leader of the House review the means of access by the disabled to the House? Does he agree that the Palace of Westminster should set an example to other public buildings in this country, and that if he were to review the means of access that would be a desirable way of ensuring that disabled people could get here?

I agree that we should set an example in this respect. There are ramps in Star Court to enable wheel chairs to proceed to the No. 1 lift, and also ramps at Chancellor's Gate for the King's Lift in another place to enable the disabled to be brought to the Principal Floor level.

I have looked into the matter carefully as a result of the hon. Member's question and I am satisfied that the arrangements are adequate, but I shall certainly have a further look at it to see whether any improvements can be made.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Serjeant at Arms for doing something to try to help the disabled. However, although you, Mr. Speaker, have kindly issued notices, hon. Members who are fit and well still park their cars in places that are reserved for the disabled and still refuse to move when asked to do so. If hon. Members say that they want to help the sick and disabled, surely they should listen to the Leader of the House, to Mr. Speaker and to the Serjeant at Arms and not park in places that are reserved for the disabled.

The hon. Member has made an important point. The parking spaces to which he referred are used from time to time by able-bodied people, though they may not all be hon. Members. In order to prevent that happening, the police are putting a notice on the windscreens of cars that are incorrectly parked. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. In this matter example is, as always, more effective than precept.

asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what consideration the Commission has given to travel allowances and the improvement of facilities for accommodation for those members of the House of Commons staff who live outside the London area.

The Commission has received no representations on this subject.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, but does he agree that many of the staff are low paid and that if they were given travel allowances from their homes to the Palace of Westminster their conditions would be considerably improved? Hon. Members receive such an allowance, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to close the gap between the two groups.

The Commission takes the view that to give special treatment would be contrary to Civil Service practice.

asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the total number of permanent staff employed in Departments of the House and the number specifically allocated to Select Committees at the latest available date and one year previously.

The total permanent staff in Departments of the House, excluding the Refreshment Department, was 609 on 1 April 1980, compared with 565 on 1 April 1979. The numbers of these staff allocated to Select Committees on the same two dates were 78 and 59, respectively.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when we are urging staff reductions in central and local government, the House should set an example? With the growth of Select Committees and the clamour that apparently exists for the staffing of even Sub-Committees, does it not seem, from the figures that he has supplied, that the most potent law emanating from the House is Parkinson's law?

The present staffing position followed the suggestions of the Procedure Committee, and the Commission takes advice as necessary from the Liaison Committee, which is requested to give it when the occasion arises. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commission bears in mind the fact that economy is necessary. Wherever possible, it is practised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new Select Committees are to work properly, as was intended by the House, they must have adequate staff?

Yes. As I have already indicated, the Commission takes advice from the Liaison Committee, and has already had advice from the Procedure Committee.

asked the Paymaster General how many press releases he has issued since he assumed responsibility for the co-ordination of the Government's Information Services.

Press releases are not issued directly from my office, but through the press offices of individual Government Departments.

Was the right hon. Gentleman at the secret meeting at No. 10 Downing Street at which the Prime Minister was reported to have told five editors that she would have no objection if their papers rubbished the trade unions? Why do the Government not tell the truth through their information services about the discredited policies of this rubbishy Government, instead of conspiring with the gutter press to discredit the trade union movement?

Since no such meeting took place, and since No. 10 Downing Street and the editors of all five newspapers have denied that it ever took place, the hon. Gentleman's question is pointless.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the events of Wednesday last week were primarily a dispute between some trade leaders and most trade unions members, the newspaper editors seem to be in better touch with the trade union movement than do Labour Members?

I entirely agree. That has been borne out by everything that has happened.

In view of the commendable view that the right hon. Gentleman took when we last discussed the House of Lords in this House, will he tell us the view of the Government on that question? Is there to be a press release on it? Are the Government supporting the concept of Lord Hailsham, or taking a different view?

That is not really a question for me. I understand that the matter is still under discussion.

asked the Paymaster General whether he is satisfied with the media coverage given to Government policy especially in relation to developments in the Islamic world.

I am satisfied that the Government take all appropriate action to make known to the media their policies towards individual Islamic countries and the Islamic world as a whole. But decisions on news and media coverage are essentially a matter for the media themselves.

Bearing in mind the resurgence of Islam and the obvious importance of the Islamic world to us, what further steps can my right hon. Friend take to make Government policies clear? For example, is he thinking of taking lessons in Arabic?

I think that that would take longer than the life of this Government to bring to fruition. The Government always negotiate and discuss matters with other Governments, and so long as the matters are within their responsibility they are satisfied that their case is being put across. However, on matters such as the film "Death of a Princess", the content of the film is not the responsibility of the Government, or a matter in which Ministers can possibly intervene, although the Government expressed their regret that offence should have been caused to the Saudi Royal Family.

Since elements of the television media appear to rate the screening of sensational entertainment higher than the preservation of British trade and interests in the Islamic world, could not the Government invite the media to consider whether standards of responsible conduct could be drawn up?

That is, of course, a matter for the IBA and not directly for the Government.

Is it not a matter of concern that there are so many allegations, including some today, of alleged links between terrorists and embassies—mainly Islamic embassies? Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be appropriate for the Ministers concerned to take all possible steps to expose the facts in this matter and the extent to which there is a serious problem of links between terrorists and Islamic embassies?

This matter is being considered both by my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Iran following the decisions taken during the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Nine in Naples on 17–18 May. A copy of the statement issued by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine will be printed in the Official Report .

The Ministers reviewed the latest developments in Iran. There were some grounds for encouragement, but nothing that constituted decisive progress leading to the hostages' release. Accordingly, as agreed in their declaration of 22 April, they decided to proceed without delay with the economic sanctions set out in the Security Council draft resolution of 10 January. The necessary orders will now be drawn up. There is agreement that the conditions and circumstances of application to be followed will be decided in common with our partners. It is accordingly our intention to act simultaneously with our partners on the basis of legal instruments co-ordinated to achieve parallel effect.

The House will have the opportunity to debate the orders after they have been laid. As was made clear at the time when the House was considering the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980, the Government intend to follow a variation of the affirmative resolution procedure for orders made under this Act. This means that such orders will lapse unless approved by the House within 28 sitting days. A parallel procedure will be followed for orders made under the Import, Export and Customs (Defence) Act 1939.

On the question of existing contracts, it was agreed that contracts for the export of goods to Iran entered into after 4 November 1979 would be affected by the sanctions. Export of goods under such contracts would be prohibited under the 1939 Act. However, service contracts will not be affected, except for new service contracts in support of industrial projects, which will be banned as from the date of the entry into force of the appropriate Order in Council. We shall be co-ordinating closely with our Community partners to achieve parallel effect on these questions.

This is a very unsatisfactory statement. The Lord Privy Seal will know from last week's debate that it was our view—a view widely shared in the House—that there should be further diplomatic efforts before triggering the sanctions against Iran. Does he not consider that the events of the last 72 hours, including President Bani-Sadr's open appeal to Britain and other European countries for a political initiative, the United Nations resumed mission to Tehran, and the bringing forward to next week of the date of the opening of the Iranian Parliament, strongly reinforce the case for a measure of delay?

Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the House and the country are now totally confused about the Government's sanctions policy? The Iran (Temporary Powers) Act and ministerial speeches clearly indicated that existing contracts would be exempt, at least in the first stage. Why, then, have the Government changed their mind? Has not the decision to make sanctions retrospective to 4 November made complete nonsense of the Act and of last week's debate?

I note what is said about the laying of orders, and I hope that arrangements will now be made for an early debate.

Finally, may I express my amazement and disquiet that the Minister has seen fit to confine his statement to Iran and to say nothing about the whole range of issues, including Afghanistan, East-West relations, the Middle East and the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget, which have surely been the main subjects for discussion at Vienna, Naples, and now Warsaw during the past three to four days? This is not the way in which to treat the House, and I give notice that we shall expect a further statement on these matters tomorrow.

As the right hon. Gentleman implied, there have, of course, been diplomatic contacts with Iran over the last few days, and he will be aware that the Foreign Ministers of the Nine referred to them in the last paragraph of their declaration. As I said in my statement, the Foreign Ministers did not think that they constituted decisive progress leading to the release of the hostages.

On the question of retrospection, the right hon. Gentleman is not quite right. He will be aware of what the Minister of State said in the House on the Second Reading of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill. In order to make it clear to the House I shall quote what my hon. Friend said at col. 919 of the Official Report . In fact, at col. 921 he said it better—[ Interruption .]

Order. Hon. Members must not rise while another Member is addressing the House.

I am prepared to read column 919 later, but column 921 is more comprehensive. The Minister of State said: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about existing trade under existing contracts. This Bill gives the Government no power under existing contracts. Powers exist under the 1939 Act not over contracts, but as regards the shipment of goods. No decision has been taken to use those powers. No decision would be taken unless it were clear that our main competitors were doing the same. If any such proposal were made, it would have to be submitted to this House for approval."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 921.] That deals with the second point.

Concerning the right hon. Gentleman's third point, we shall debate the orders as soon as possible. That will have to be decided in conjunction with our partners and with the usual channels.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's fourth point, he displayed, if I may say so, some ignorance about Community procedures. He will be aware that this was an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers, of the sort that takes place every six months, and that it is not customary for decisions to be taken at these informal meetings. It was not customary under the previous Government, and it is not customary under the present Government, for a statement to be made after them. I am making a statement about Iran because the Foreign Ministers agreed exceptionally at Naples that their several Governments would now take certain action. In view of last week's debate, I thought it was only courtesy to the House to make a statement.

I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the last part of his answer; indeed, I should like to press him on virtually everything that he said. It really will not do to make a statement to the House on the basis of having had what he calls an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers, about which he says that the convention is that reports are not made, to found upon that informal meeting a major statement of policy, and then to say that other matters—we know that this has been a weekend of quite exceptional diplomatic activity—under discussion in Vienna as well as in Naples are not to be the subject of report to the House. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that this will not be acceptable to us. If this is to be the new practice of the Government we shall find many ways of making them change their mind.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman working himself into a rage. He knows the procedure. We are acting here in accordance with the historic procedures. The matter concerning Iran was quite exceptional. It was well known that the Foreign Ministers at the informal meeting were, for once, intending to make a decision on the matter. But, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows—or should know—decisions are not usually taken at informal meetings of Foreign Ministers.

We are hoping that the prospect of sanctions, allied to quiet diplomacy, will lead to the release of the hostages, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the decisions taken present us with an awkward dilemma? If the sanctions fail—they usually do—the credibility of the West will be still further weakened, and we shall have no option except to strengthen the Western military capability in South-West Asia. If, on the other hand, they succeed in imposing unacceptable damage on the Iranian economy, this will redound to the advantage of both the pro-Soviet and the pro-Western opponents of the present Iranian Government. Should not we make up our minds fairly quickly, to identify who are our friends in Iran?

My right hon. Friend has pointed to the disadvantages that are attached to sanctions. I think that many people in the House, if not most people, would agree with him. In principle, most people are against the sanctions, because usually sanctions do not work, but after two days of debate in the House last week, my right hon. Friend and the rest of the House will be aware of the reason why this course has been adopted.

What are the grounds for encouragement to which the Lord Privy Seal referred, and why have they had no effect on the timing of the sanctions?

The Lord Privy Seal said that the sanctions would be introduced in parallel by the members of the Community. How does he intend to demonstrate this to the House, following the debate?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to the last paragraph in the declaration by the Foreign Ministers. I also refer him to the various aspects of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has just called "quiet diplomacy".

With regard to simultaneity, we shall have to co-ordinate very closely with our partners, and we are in very close touch with them.

If the 1939 Act is now considered sufficient, what on earth was the House of Commons doing on Monday and Tuesday of last week? Will the Lord Privy Seal look at the statement made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office? He said: We came to the conclusion that the 1939 Act was not sufficient for our purposes because, although it is a blockbuster, its scope is too narrow.—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 919.] What has changed in the last 72 hours?

Nothing at all. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the position. We shall have to produce orders under both Acts. The 1939 Act is not sufficient. For one thing, it does not deal with service contracts; for another, it does not deal with transport.

The announcement referred, I think, to the special legal difficulties likely to be encountered in Germany and Italy in regard to retrospection in the context of these contracts. Can my right hon. Friend say in what way the legal position there differs from that in this country, where, presumably, the trader would have to rely on the doctrine of frustration and that of an intervening act, if sued for breach of contract? Could my right hon. Friend make a statement in the House—or get one of his right hon. Friends to do so—elaborating somewhat, for the guidance of those concerned, the position of people involved in contracts and saying how we differ in this respect from the other two countries?

I would not want to burden the House with my views about the legal position in Germany and other countries. That would be beyond my competence. I can only say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as I suggested earlier, we shall aim to act simultaneously and also with the same degree of severity over these matters, to see that we are not getting in front of our partners, nor getting behind them. That must be our objective, and I hope the House will agree that it is a sensible one.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many will feel that the Government have cheated over the date when sanctions are to be applied, and that those who will suffer and feel most strongly are those whose jobs could be at risk in this country? Would it not have been far better, on the merits of the matter, for the Foreign Ministers to recognise that sanctions are a futile and farcical gesture, which—as was pointed by many of us on the Labour Benches during the debate last week—will in no way help to secure the release of one hostage?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is always consistent about sanctions and thinks that they should never be pursued anywhere, but to say that we have been cheating is characteristic of him. It is totally wrong. I have already read out to the House what my hon. Friend said during the debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said much the same thing. There is no question whatever of cheating.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, at the end of the day, in addition to sanctions, and in order to get the hostages released, we are obliged to consent to some sort of bizarre trial or inquiry into the role of the United States of America—and, indeed, the Shah—in Iran, everybody should be properly represented at those proceedings? Does he further agree that in addition there should be ample opportunity to compare the present regime with its predecessor?

No doubt that is so, but my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that it goes well beyond the confines of my statement.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the statement that he made goes against the will of the House? It was perfectly clear in the debate that the measure did not apply to contracts made before the debate. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that many hon. Members on each side of the House voted for the Bill in those circumstances. He is now telling the House something that is quite different. Surely, what he is now suggesting is against the absolute will of the House, as expressed in the Lobbies.

I do not think that a point becomes any stronger by being repeated three times. I have already given the answer. The 1980 Act does not apply to existing contracts, but, as my hon. Friend made clear several times to the House, the 1939 Act does.

Did the Foreign Ministers of the EEC receive any indication from the French Foreign Minister as to what would be said about Iran by President Giscard to President Brezhnev at their mysteriously private summit meeting? If not, was this not a serious omission?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that that has very little to do with my statement.

Have not the Government completely misled the House on this question? Is it not a fact that the 1939 Act does not cover service contracts or transport contracts? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there may well have been service and transport contracts arranged between 4 November and today, yet those who have drawn up those contracts were not aware that this legislation would be retrospective? If the measure is an enabling Act and needs to be amended, will amending legislation be brought before the House?

Repeating myself for the fourth time will not make any difference. It has been made perfectly clear that the 1939 Act applies in this case and that there is no question of amending legislation being needed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Government Benches he had overwhelming support in bringing legislation forward to use sanctions against Iran? However, is he also aware that many of us on the Government Benches were not aware, in listening to the debates last week, that the retrospective element of the legislation which will now be involved against Iran was even being considered? Is he further aware that it will do enormous damage to British industry, and that many people since November have made contracts—quite justifiably—which will now be revoked over their heads? I do not believe that my right hon. Friend intended this when he last spoke to the House and I hope that he will confirm that it is only because of the influence of the EEC on British Government policy that this step has now been taken.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening sentence. He will be aware that the contracts going back to 4 November will come under the 1939 Act.

Will the Lord Privy Seal indicate how the Nine propose to monitor the effect of sanctions? What instruments are available to ensure that other nations who do not play cricket, as we do, do not cheat over the imposition of sanctions? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the number of firms and jobs that might be affected by the retrospective element of the legislation that he seeks to impose?

It is too early to discuss how we shall monitor something that has not yet been brought into effect. I entirely agree that it is an extremely important matter. We shall see that the cricketers do not suffer more than the non-cricketers. On the second point, I agree that it is important, but I cannot give the House any figures.

As one who went along with the sanctions policy with great misgivings, but realising that it was necessary to do something to support our American allies, may I ask my right hon. Friend's help in giving us some reason why the 1939 powers are being invoked and why they are being backdated to 4 November? Has any decision yet been taken on what constitutes a new contract? Those of us who are concerned with the motor industry, for example, in which orders are consistently renewed on a schedule basis, find the position very confusing and disturbing.

I appreciate my hon. Friends' point. As he realises, at the meeting in Naples no decisions were taken on the details, although this is a particularly important detail. The Government consider that it will be in conformity with the Naples decision that continuing arrangements, essentially concluded before November, should be excluded from the sanctions.

Can the Minister tell us whether any estimates have been made of the number of jobs likely to be lost? Also, do the Government now accept the principle that retrospective legislation is necessary, although they did not give that impresseion in the debates last week? Is it not true that my hon. Friends' views about "cheating" are indeed justified? Will the Lord Privy Seal also accept that this is a particularly complex issue? In view of its complexity, added to the fact that people might be retiring from the scene very shortly, and that it is to do with foreign countries, will he adopt the Attorney-General's principle that in those cases an amnesty will be introduced?

I have already answered the hon. Member's first point. I cannot give an estimate. I have also answered the allegation of cheating. I entirely agree that this is a complex matter. The date of 4 November has been chosen because that was the date on which the hostages were taken.

As today's announcement is part of a co-ordinated European foreign policy, and as many of us cannot possibly believe that it would have been made otherwise, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the visit of President Giscard d'Estaing to President Brezhnev is part of that policy? Or is it just an ego trip on the part of the President of France? Secondly, if we are now going in for retrospective legislation, what does my right hon. Friend think that the Ayatollah will do with the Talbot contract?

The first part of the question is beyond the reaches of the statement. Secondly, my hon. Friend talks about retrospective legislation. Certainly these are retrospective sanctions, but that is not the same thing as retrospective legislation. Obviously, I have no information about the Ayatollah's intentions.