asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to discuss with the chairman of British Coal the future structure of the industry.

I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

When will British Coal management and miners be given the opportunity now being offered to British Gas employees to become shareholders in their own enterprise as a reward for the excellent progress that the industry has made in recent months and to provide further motivation for improved productivity and profitability in the industry? Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can find Sid's brother and tell him?

There are no present plans for privatisation, but I am pleased to say that under the bonus system operated by the NCB many miners have benefited from the massively improved productivity that has taken place.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) said, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that none of the plans for the proposed structural changes to British Coal will enable it to be privatised?

No, Sir. I have always said from the Dispatch Box that I would not rule out the possibility of the privatisation of British Coal. That would be an absurd thing to do and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not do so either.

Does the Secretary of State support the increase in the private sector of the British coal industry?

The arrangements that have taken place on the licensing of deep mines and the work of the opencast mines have been perfectly sensible and practical, and, I hope, have been to the benefit of the coal industry. I do not think that there is any problem on that.

Was Sir Robert Haslam speaking on his own behalf or on behalf of the Government when he talked about privatisation and preparing the industry for privatisation?

If the right hon. Gentleman reads what Sir Robert Haslam said to the Select Committee and elsewhere, he will see that he simply expressed the view that if British Coal were to be privatised it had to be done as an entity. That is a perfectly reasonable view for the chairman of the Coal Board to express.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in encouraging the use of remote meter reading technology for electricity users.

There are promising developments in this field. The Electricity Council has recently received a report on the field trials of remote reading systems and as a result is now planning to proceed with the next stage of development, which is expected to lead to the installation of a large-scale pilot scheme.

I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's reply. Does he recognise the benefit that a remote meter reading scheme might have in places such as London, where there is a high turnover of the area boards' customers and where people are often not in when the meter reader comes to check their meters?

My hon. Friend is correct about the potential value of remote meter reading. He will be pleased to know that it is intended that the proposed large-scale pilot scheme, which will involve 200,000 homes, will be in London.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to discuss management of nuclear waste reprocessing.

I meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the substantial progress that has been made by BNFL in reducing the levels of discharges of radioactive material into the Irish sea? Is he also aware that BNFL has made substantial progress in becoming one of the largest yen earners in Britain, and that, indeed, in a few years time it will be on a par with Unilever?

Yes, Sir. I am pleased to say that the discharge levels from Sellafield are down to one tenth of what they were in the year before we took office. I am also delighted to say that the potential export orders of BNFL are a considerable proportion and will greatly benefit Britain.

Will the Secretary of State accept not only that discharge levels are down to one tenth of their previous levels, but that by 1991 discharges to the marine environment from Sellafield will be almost zero and will meet the objectives of every green organisation in the United Kingdom? Does he further accept that with the development of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant BNFL will have spent £1·5 billion by 1990 and will have created thousands of jobs in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Does he accept that that deserves congratulation?

Yes. That shows the difference between those on the Opposition Benches who know what is going on and those who do not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that further major reductions will take effect by 1991. At present, THORP is providing 8,000 jobs directly in the United Kingdom, and BNFL estimates that it will save a further 10,000 jobs in supplier companies each year for the next five years.

While my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may know what is going on and others do not, the fact is that the people on Merseyside, in Ireland and in Northern Ireland are worried about what is happening in the Irish sea. Is it not clear that there must be something better than what is happening at present, because the Irish sea is becoming a nuclear waste pool? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It may be nonsense to Conservative Members, but they do not live in the area. Our people on Merseyside are so scared of what is happening nowadays that most of them refuse to go fishing in the area.

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, because he was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry during the period when pollution of the Irish sea was 10 times what it is at present. I hope that he will reflect on the matter and congratulate the Government for so improving the position.

I was not responsible for that.

Is it not a fact that under the Labour Government discharges from Sellafield into the Irish sea were at a safe level and being steadily reduced and that if they are now only one tenth that level, they are extremely safe?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the levels are extremely safe.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the provisions available for connecting homes without electricity to the public electricity supply.

Area electricity boards are required to make a supply available to premises situated within 50 yd of a distributing main. Beyond this distance, area boards can arrange connection for an appropriate payment. In some circumstances, it is possible to requisition a board to provide a distributing main to enable connection to be made.

Is it not a disgrace that in this day and age thousands of people are not on the public electricity supply and cannot be put on it unless they fork out thousands of pounds? My constituents are often quoted as much as £10,000. Will the Minister look at the system that operates in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board area and the legislation which enables it to offer connection for much lower sums and see whether he can apply that in areas of England and the south of Scotland, where such facilities are not available?

Of the United Kingdom electricity boards, only the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has a statutory provision to help with the economic development and social improvement of its district. Assistance with the costs of connection is given under that provision. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present for such a measure. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, I hope that he will draw them to my attention.

How many houses are still lit by gas mantles? Would it not be a good idea, before we consider privatising electricity supply, if we made arrangements to cover houses that do not have an electricity supply?

I have no figures for the number of gas mantles, but I shall try to find out and let my hon. Friend know.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the charges frequently quoted by electricity boards for reconnection, outside the small distance limit quoted by him, often smack of monopoly abuse? Will he consider ways in which competition may be introduced for the benefit of consumers?

I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. The level of charge is designed to recover cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the aggregate annual savings generated by energy efficiency schemes undertaken by Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

It is estimated that Government schemes are currently leading to savings of more than £500 million a year in industry and commerce. Nearly 3 million homes have also been insulated or draught proofed, leading to significant savings and greater comfort. Following my right hon. Friend's initiative, all Government Departments have appointed energy managers, and I shall be meeting their energy managers group next month, when I shall be reviewing progress so far.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the result of the programme? Will he say what percentage of energy costs this represents and how the Government's performance compares with that of the private sector?

We calculate that £2 billion could still be cut from the annual energy bill of British industry and commerce. I have not yet received a calculation from the energy managers of what Government Departments have saved and what will be saved in Energy Efficiency Year. I shall write in detail to my hon. Friend as soon as the energy managers' report has been received.

The Minister has accepted that much more can still be achieved, even though progress has been made. Will he consider revising the capital allowance programmes of public departments and agencies with a view to exempting some energy-saving schemes from them which offer short-term paybacks? There is evidence that many public authorities which would like to introduce energy efficiency schemes are prevented from doing to because of budgeting methods.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the initiative that my right hon. Friend has taken on contract energy management, which is having a significant impact already, espcially on local authorities. As for hospitals and the Health Service, my Department is pursuing an effective joint initiative with the Department of Health and Social Security and nearly 20 per cent. of the extended energy survey scheme applications have been for hospital sites, There is movement, but there is still a long way to go.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the establishment of the new telephone hotline, which has been established with neighbourhood energy action? It will help the disabled, the elderly and others on low incomes to receive assistance in keeping warm this winter. Will he ensure that all citizens advice bureaux are made aware of the hotline, they being in the front line in dealing with these problems?

I, too, pay tribute to the citizens advice bureaux in this crucial area. It is a fact that the disabled on low incomes and the old are only a telephone call away from receiving help on how to keep warm this winter. I hope very much that the telephone hotline will be greatly used. By telephoning 0800-234-8000, callers will be put in touch with their nearest neighbourhood energy action project.

Does the Minister recognise that the greatest savings can be made in the health sector? I am encouraged by the figures that he has given, but is he aware that many health authorities are having to worry about their budgets, and that in many instances capital projects that could produce the results that he is talking about are being pushed aside by other areas of expenditure that inevitably are given priority?

I am not aware of any examples of that sort, but if the hon. Gentleman has details, will he please give them to me? Only last Thursday I visited Withington hospital in the area of the South Manchester health authority. I was impressed with the authority's action plan, especially with the feeding through of savings, to the benefit of patients in local hospitals.

When will the Treasury relax its restrictions on third-party financing so that the private sector can invest in energy efficiency in the public sector on a shared benefit basis?

My hon. Friend will know the commitment that my right hon. Friend and I have to contract energy management. We are still in early days, but we are unaware of the serious restrictions which my hon. Friend mentions, although we are monitoring the position very carefully.

asked the Secretary of Slate for Energy how much investment there has been in the coal industry since 1979; and how this compares with the investment in the period 1974 to 1979?

Since 1979 more than £5 billion has been invested in the coal industry. In real terms, the rate of investment has been more than 35 per cent. per year higher than under the previous Labour Administration.

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Does it not show that record investment has made the coal industry competitive, and does it not refute the allegation that all that the Government have done is to close collieries? Was it not the previous Labour Government who starved the coal industry of its investment funds?

Exactly. My hon. Friend is correct. If one excludes the year of the miners' strike, in which, thanks to that tragic and unnecessary dispute, nearly £500 million worth of potential investment was lost, investment under this Administration has been almost 50 per cent. higher per year in real terms than under Labour. We have seen, especially in my hon. Friend's constituency, a massive increase in productivity, which bodes very well for the future of the coal industry.

Does the Minister acknowledge that if he wishes to make full use of the investment which has been put into the coal industry he must ensure that British miners have access to the best and most up-to-date mining equipment? If he accepts that, will he give an assurance that he will pay special attention to developments at the NCB subsiduary at Tredomen engineering works? Will he give a further assurance that he will take all steps possible to ensure that any orders for mining equipment go to that subsidiary company?

The hon. Gentleman knows that decisions on investment at individual pits must be a matter for British Coal management. I assure him, as I think he suggested, that British technology, especially in deep-mining equipment, is the best in the world. In the mines that I have been privileged to visit during the past 18 months I have seen some of the finest equipment in the world and some of the finest miners in the world, which together have produced those tremendous results.

Does the Minister accept that investment in the coal industry during the past decade stems from the "Plan for Coal" for which the Labour Government were responsible and which the present Administration have continued? If the logic of that plan is to be maintained, will the Minister ensure further effort to secure greater markets for British coal in Europe, to enable the home base for that superb technology to be maintained?

Will the Minister take steps to ensure that South African coal ceases to enter Britain as it does today?

I had thought that the hon. Gentleman needed no lessons from me as to the real position in the coal industry today. I am surprised that he should mention the discredited "Plan for Coal". Under this Government, investment has been far higher in real terms than was ever envisaged under "Plan for Coal". That envisaged a 4 per cent. increase in productivity every year. Under the last Labour Administration productivity fell overall by 2 per cent. Under this Government it has increased by 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Will the Minister confirm that the figures that he has just given took into consideration the two changes in accounting practice by the National Coal Board? I refer, first, to deferred interest counting as capital expenditure and, secondly, to lease assets being included for the first time in 1985–86.

Will the Minister confirm, especially for the edification of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who posed the question, that in 1979 total investment in north and south Nottinghamshire was £149 million? I discovered from figures obtained from the Library that, taking that at 1985–86 prices, the investment projected for those two areas totals £97 million.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has some crucial points wrong. He has failed to appreciate that the total investment under the Labour Administration was less than that envisaged in "Plan for Coal", and considerably less in real terms than that provided under this Administration. We have seen record investment, which the Government believe is fully justified, but which evidently the Labour Government did not.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish the Sizewell B inspector's report.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to publish the findings of the public inquiry into the proposed PWR nuclear reactor station at Sizewell B, in Suffolk.

The inspector now intends to deliver his report to me at the end of this month or in early December. I shall decide on the publication date when I have seen and considered it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he initiate an urgent debate on this subject in order to end the highly unsatisfactory situation whereby Britain's entire energy policy has been held up by a local planning inquiry for more than four years?

Yes. I think that the four-year delay in making any decisions has been a sad feature of holding such a full inquiry. We must carefully consider the results of that inquiry, but then, as my hon. Friend said, we must reach decisions as quickly as possible.

As the Government are so keen to privatise the energy supply industry, what does the right hon. Gentleman believe to be the view of the private sector and the City towards privatising the pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, or reactors anywhere else? Is not the reality that if the Government offered that PWR to the private sector without any public money there would be no economic case, and such privatisation would be seen to be a bad part of the Government's economic and energy strategy?

I had not considered offering a PWR to the City, but I shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's views and see whether that is a possibility.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer? Does he agree that the British public are probably split about 50–50 on the desirability of continuing with the nuclear industry? Will he undertake to arrange for a debate to be held in the House before an answer is reached?

As I have said, I wish to consider the report before making up my mind on these matters.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the long delay in publishing the report has created havoc in the industry? Is it not now imperative that he makes an early decision? Until that decision is made, the industry's major procurement decisions will be delayed. Many firms are finding it extremely difficult to cater for that.

I well recognise that several industries, particularly in the north of England, are concerned about the delays. However, it was right that the inspector should take such care to prepare the report, and there was obviously no way in which I could hasten it. All the services that he required were offered and provided. It has been a matter of regret to me that we have had to wait so long before making any decisions. I also agree that once the report is received decisions will have to be made quickly.

Does the Secretary of State intend to deprive residents of areas where other PWRs are planned, such as Druridge Bay, of their full rights of objection if the CEGB proceeds with other PWR proposals?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those concerned about the safety of a nuclear reactor at Sizewell B should be more concerned about the safety standards of the 140 foreign civil nuclear power reactors that are within 500 miles of Britain? If those reactors were up to the standards of the British civil nuclear power organisation the country might then be reassured, but that patently was not the case at Chernobyl.

The initiatives taken by Britain and western Europe in general to ensure that better safety standards prevail in eastern Europe are of considerable importance. In comparison with all the various forms of energy industry, none has had a better safety record in the European Community for the past 25 years than the nuclear power industry.

Will the Secretary of State explain more fully how he will deal with the report? Will he publish it as soon as he receives it, so that the House and the country can see it? As he knows, its publication has been delayed and delayed. He promised the report in September and now, in November, he is talking about December. The country urgently needs to see that report, and we should have a debate before the Government take any decision.

I wish to see the report before I decide on these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of output in the mining industry; and what was the comparable figure in 1985.

Current output in the coal industry has been maintained at broadly the same level as in 1985, with output per man shift reaching a new record level of 3·55 tons in the week ending 1 November 1986, compared with 2·87 tons in the same week last year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures represent a staggering increase in productivity? Will he convey our congratulations to both management and work force? Do not those figures represent a ringing vindication of the rationalisation policy carried out in the teeth of a politically motivated strike?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That encouraging and rapid growth in productivity since the end of that tragic and unnecessary strike demonstrates the determination of all concerned in the coal industry to succeed and to meet the competitive challenge in the energy markets. Since 1979 productivity has risen by more than 50 per cent., and productivity records have been broken in six out of the past seven weeks.

Is the Minister aware that there have been four deaths in south Wales pits during this financial year? Is he also aware that there is an upward trend in reportable accidents? Does he think that increases in productivity are being achieved by pushing unacceptable levels of safety, to the danger of the men who work in the industry?

I believe that to be one of the most disgraceful accusations that I have heard in the Chamber. That is an insult to all who work in the industry because, for them, safety is always paramount.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to authorise the construction of further power stations.

The only application to construct a power station currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is for Sizewell B, and he intends to make a decision on that as soon as possible after he receives the inspector's report.

Is my hon. Friend aware that by the year 2000 AD there will be a shortage of generating capacity in the United Kingdom unless stations are authorised in the 1980s? Will he persuade my right hon. Friend to get ahead and order both nuclear power stations and several coal-fired power stations?

As my right hon. Friend has said, he intends to lose no time in reaching a decision on Sizewell. The Central Electricity Generating Board is considering the possibility of building new coal-fired stations. My right hon. Friend has received no applications to construct new power stations apart from Sizewell. The CEGB has identified a number of possible sites for future coal-fired stations but has made no firm decisions as to where they will be sited.

Before the Secretary of State commissions any more nuclear power stations, will he first examine the cost of de-commissioning such power stations? Before there are any more commissions, will be ensure that the true cost of generating electricity by nuclear-powered stations includes their de-commissioning? When the true cost is revealed, we may find that using fossil fuel is the cheaper way of generating electricity.

The cost of de-commissioning power stations is provided for in the CEGB's accounts.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the usage of nuclear power in the European Community is 35 per cent. and rising, and that any decision to curtail this programme would lead to critical pressure on resources and serious implications for the Community?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), is the Minister aware that there is an urgent need for the immediate ordering of two coal-fired power stations? The demand is there, so why wait for Sizewell? Why not get ahead with two coal-fired stations now?

The Government fully appreciate the importance of maintaining the capability of the industry during a period of a lack of home orders, and they have provided considerable aid and support for the industry to win overseas contracts to help maintain its capability. However, ordering is essentially a matter for the CEGB.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department has spent on research, development and demonstration of renewable energy sources since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department has spent on renewable energy sources since 1979; and what was the comparable figure in the period 1974 to 1979.

Expenditure by my Department on research, development and demonstration into the renewable sources of energy in the financial year 1979–80 to 1985–86 amounted to £91·3 million. That compares with £7·6 million in the years 1975–76 to 1978–79.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most helpful reply. Is the Department also looking into and monitoring the work carried out in Denmark and the Scandinavian countries into renewable resource activities, because it appears that good work is being carried out there as well as in this country?

Yes, we keep in touch with all the developments in Common Market countries. The question of useful alternatives and research is discussed from time to time in the Council of Energy Ministers. I note my hon. Friends remarks.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read a recent report to his Department about the hot dry rock technology developed by KE International in my constituency, which is producing electricity at a lower cost than fossil fuel? In view of the export potential of this new British technology, will he favourably consider funding a demonstration plant in Cornwall to act as an export shop window and ensure that this British technology is exploited in Britain and does not need to go abroad?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance and economic relevance of this area of alternative energy. I hope that a decision will be taken on this matter next year. Of course, my hon. Friend is already aware that, so far, we have spent about £20 million on geothermal hot dry rocks. That demonstrates the importance that we attach to it.

Does the Minister not think it unfortunate that some hon. Members have been invited to Norway in the next couple of weeks to see the installation of its prototype wave power generators, when British wave power research has been cancelled? Does he not acknowledge that, although we successfully pioneered wind power generation in Scotland, Denmark and the United States are way ahead of us in its application? Can we not take action to speed up the application of technology rather than just deal with research and development?

The hon. Gentleman ought to examine the facts before he makes statements like that. So far, we have spent about £17 million on wave power. It has been studied very carefully. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should study what happens in this country before he tries to sing the praises of other countries.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has encouraged the development of renewable energy resources from day one. After all, it is something for nothing. Does he agree that more emphasis given to combined heat and power will reduce the cost of energy throughout the country and will ensure that all commercial undertakings and, indeed, private individuals, will benefit from a resource that has so far been untapped and unexpended?

I am very much aware—of course, I am sure that I am not as aware as is my hon. Friend—of the good work being done in Leicester. I hope that he will convey to his friends in Leicester the fact that we await the report with considerable interest and expectation. I have no doubt that as this involves Leicester my hon. Friend will give it his wholehearted support.

Has the Minister examined the work done by the Severn barrage consortium on its Severn estuary project? Does he accept the figures that the consortium produced on the cost per unit of producing electricity?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, further work is going on. The Government are helping in the funding of that work. One of the purposes is to try to clarify precisely the issue that he mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the aggregate investment generated so far by British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has itself committed £18·8 million in support of some 800 individual projects. Over £100 million has been generated for these projects from other sources, such as banks, local authorities, Government grants and other enterprise agencies.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. I welcome the high percentage of other resources to add to those of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider another aspect. During that terrible strike, and since, the miners in the so-called good areas of long life were accused of an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude. Therefore, will he assure the House that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. will always have sufficient funds so that that charge is never allowed to stick?

I mentioned that £18·8 million has already been provided. I have already allocated up to £40 million to the enterprise company. I have made it clear that, in my judgment, it is not a financial limitation but a matter of finding job opportunities. I am delighted to say that so far nearly 12,000 new job opportunities have been created in coalmining communities. Therefore, if one examines the amount of money expended so far, one will see that it is likely that around 25,000 new jobs will be provided under the new programme. The mining community will consider that programme an exciting one.

Is the Minister aware that British Coal Enterprise is refusing to give any information or detail about where these jobs are, what types of jobs they are and what companies are being supported? Therefore, it has been impossible to evaluate what the impact in our communities of British Coal Enterprise will be. Many of us still do not see much evidence of its working.

I am saddened at the constant way in which the Labour party has bickered about British Coal Enterprise. In view of the tens of thousands of mining jobs lost during the Labour Government, it is a pity that there was not an enterprise company then.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made with coal conversion schemes; and if he will make a statement.

The Department of Energy has offered grant-aid under the coal firing scheme of £48 million towards the cost of 420 projects with annual coal burn of 2·7 million tonnes. The scheme will close to new applications made after 30 June 1987.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he extend the scheme in view of the fact that the price of oil is always likely to fluctuate and that we do not have control over it, yet have adequate coal supplies? If we encourage people to use that coal, there will not only be a market for our coal but a very good market for the manufacturing products of engineering enterprises that go in for the coal conversion schemes.

The scheme has achieved the objectives for which it was set up—to help the coal industry become competitive, to reduce industrial energy costs and to reduce our long-term dependence on oil and gas. I recognise that it is a significant scheme. I am happy to announce that there is still a useful and substantial amount of money available for coal conversions and a useful amount of time left in which to make those applications.

With permission, I shall put together the two motions on Statutory Instruments.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

We debate this Bill against a background of low oil prices and at a time when the industry is going through one of its most difficult periods since we were first fortunate enough to discover oil and gas off our coast. To that extent, many of us in the House—particularly those who, like myself, represent constitituencies in the areas where the activities are based—are very sensitive about the particular problems that the industry faces.

We have particular sympathy and understanding for those individuals who face difficulties, many of whom, because of the downturn in the price of oil, have lost their jobs. Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, it is important that we should not become too obsessed with the immediate problems, important though they are, but that we should look ahead to the future of this industry and to the other challenges and problems that it will have to face in the years ahead.

Despite the immediate difficulties that are faced by the industry, it is still very much in business. Production continues and there have been new developments, especially those relating to gas. I have considerable confidence in the continuing activity of this industry for many years to come.

Against that background, it is important to plan at this stage not only for the continuing development activities of the industry but also for the other challenges that the industry will have to face. When no more oil or gas is economically recoverable from a field and the life of that field comes to an end, one of the challenges will be that the structure and other installations that have been used to recover the oil and gas will still be in situ. Therefore, we have to provide for what happens to those structures and installations when the life of a field comes to an end. That is the main matter that the Bill tackles. As I said earlier, it is a challenge for the future; it is not of immediate importance to the industry. None the less, I am glad that the Bill is being introduced at this stage, because it will provide us with a better opportunity to plan and to prepare for this challenge.

The Government have taken the opportunity to deal with a number of other important issues in the Bill. They are less striking than the abandonment of installations and structures, but they will also have to be dealt with.

The abandonment of structures and installations is not, as I have already emphasised, an immediate problem for the industry. The first fields are not expected to come to the end of their lives before the early 1990s, when steps will have to be taken to remove the installations and structures associated with them. There are now 150 oil and gas installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf. As the industry will continue to develop for many decades to come, the number of installations is expected to increase in the coming years, which will pose a substantial challenge.

Furthermore, the wide variety of gas and oil fields and the different types of structures and methods used to extract the oil and gas means that their abandonment will pose a variety of problems. There are a number of fairly small, lighweight installations in a number of fields. There are also a number of giant installations. I am thinking in particular of the huge concrete and steel jackets that are placed in water depths of up to 185 m. These very heavy structures are found mainly in the northern part of the North sea. By contrast, in the southern basin there are smaller structures that weigh as little as 300 tonnes. In the deeper waters the steel structures can weigh up to 58,000 tonnes each, creating a considerable physical problem, and concrete structures, of which we have about ten in the North sea, can weigh up to 650,000 tonnes. This illustrates the scale of the problem and the challenge which the industry and the Government have to face, and which the Bill seeks to address.

Has any research been conducted into the possible utilisation of the lighter structures, based as some of them are in shallow water, for artificial reefs?

Yes, some research is under way on such structures and attention has been given to artificial reefs in the press and on radio and television. I believe that some oil companies may be inviting the fishing industry to consider the matter, but perhaps we may deal with that point later.

To remove structures of the size and scale that I have described would involve huge sums of money. With the co-operation of the oil industry in 1984, it was estimated that, at 1984 prices, to require the complete removal of the structures in place at the moment—not future developments—could cost about £6 billion. That is a very large sum of money indeed.

I emphasise that that figure is surrounded by considerable uncertainties. For example, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, there are many different structures in different areas—small structures in the southern basin and larger structures elsewhere. However, the real challenge lies in the deep waters which, although they contain only about one third of the total number of structures, might, it is estimated, involve more than three quarters of the total cost. It is that kind of uncertainty, given the scale of the problem, that makes it difficult to be specific about costs.

Existing legislation requires the removal of such structures, but in general terms to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. Under present legislation, we lack any detailed framework to deal with the abandonment of platforms and other installations. We do not have the provisions to set the kind of standards that might be required to do that or deal with the submission and approval of removal plans and with important matters such as preventing default from any removal obligations. The Bill seeks to enable action in all those general areas.

A large number of interests are involved. On the one hand, there are the interests of the oil companies which installed the structures and platforms and other installations and which are now operating them and will be doing so for the rest of their productive life. On the other hand, in contrast, there are the interests of the taxpayer. At the end of the day, in the same way as development costs were allowable against tax, it has always been understood that abandonment costs would equally he allowable against tax. Therefore, another major interest in any legislation must be that of the taxpayer and the country generally.

There are other interests which use the sea—for example, the shipping industry, navigators and, most important, fishermen who have traditionally used the sea and the waters around our coasts for longer than the oil industry. Because of that, for longer than a year, consultations have been undertaken, some of which I have conducted. We have consulted the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations from south of the border, a number of organisations representing the Scottish fishing industry, and the Sea Fish Industry Authority. On the industry side, we have consulted the Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and Brindex, the organisation that represents the small British independent exploration companies.

I do not wish to delay my right hon. Friend and I am aware of the consultations that he is having with the various fishing organisations, but can he assure me that, before or during Committee stage, he will have further negotiations with the fishing industry, especially the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which has expressed serious reservations about clause 2(11)?

May I follow the intervention of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) and ask, while I have no objection to consultations with fishermen—they seem to be a good idea—whether the Minister recognises that, in a letter from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association, we are told that it is disturbed by some proposals in the Bill and is at present discussing those concerns with the Department of Energy in the hope that they can be resolved by appropriate amendments to the Bill? Would it not have been better to have delayed the Bill a little longer so that consultations could have been carried out? Can we take it that the Minister will have consultations, even at the cost of delaying the Committee stage by a day or two?

I had hoped to get on with some of the detailed provisions, but I am happy to deal with these points, as they are about consultations. Consultations have been taking place now for nearly a year and in some cases for more than a year. All parties to the consultations have been aware of the problems under discussion. We have made clear what we believe needs to be done and the issues that need to be covered. If some matters are not dealt with to the satisfaction of those concerned, we shall consider them during the later stages of the Bill. Some consultations will certainly continue.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about delaying the Bill. What he says would be a great reason for delaying all legislation. We have laid down provisions for some important issues. There may be better ways, but I shall approach the Committee stage in my usual constructive manner; I am sure that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with whom I have worked in Committee, will do the same. If there are further representations and suggestions, I shall be happy to consider them during the later stages of the Bill. I am sure that we shall have a great deal of opportunity for debate during those stages.

Following those consultations, we have sought in the Bill properly to strike a balance between the different interests. There is a conflict of interest, as there is in any legislation. That is why the Government must reach a decision and make their proposals. We have sought, for example, both to ensure that we minimise the costs of abandonment which ultimately fall on taxpayers, thereby ensuring their interests, and at the same time to balance the interests of those who use and who will be using the sea in different ways for many generations to come. There is another important balance to strike, for we must ensure that the provisions that we introduce are consistent with our obligations under international law. That must have a bearing on what is ultimately decided.

That is the background to what we are seeking to do by means of the Bill.

Am I to understand that that is all that the Minister intends to say about international obligations?

I should be happy to say a great deal more on that score, but, if I do so, I shall not be able to make progress with my speech, in what is a relatively short debate. I have been interrupted constantly so far.

I have mentioned in passing our international obligations; as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are certain obligations under the Geneva convention of 1958, which were laid down at a time when the North sea had not been developed in the way that it is now and when international law was directed to smaller and lighter structures. The very large structures which now exist were not anticipated then.

As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney knows, with his experience of dealing with international matters, international law evolves constantly, and the Geneva convention has been very much overtaken by the law of the sea conference of 1982. The hon. Gentleman may know that, following that conference, the International Maritime Organisation, which is one of the arms of the international organisation that deals with this matter, will be convening meetings that will start early next year to deal with these precise issues. International law will evolve as the Bill is considered, and will evolve even further after it is enacted. We have chosen a relatively flexible framework for the Bill, as that will enable us to respond to whatever may be decided internationally. In introducing the Bill and in planning for the 1990s, we are way ahead of any other country that faces these challenges. In introducing the Bill now, I hope that we are focussing the debate on the United Kingdom and more widely.

I am grateful for that elaboration. These are important matters and they will be of importance in the Committee. May I take it that the Government intend to submit proposals to the IMO at its meeting in January in giving a lead of the sort that the Minister has suggested?

Discussions are taking place on the precise form of the IMO meetings and they are still at an early stage. No decision has been taken on the exact case that we shall present. We want to know slightly more about the agenda that is to be discussed. The international debate through the international organisations will be a reflection of what we are discussing domestically. I wish to emphasise that domestically we are ahead of what is taking place internationally.

The provisions of the Bill are addressed to providing a framework that will control the safe and orderly abandonment of installations. The Bill will not set standards in the abandonment provisions. It will enable the Secretary of State to set standards covering such important matters as safety of operation and the other important matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) referred, such as the extent of removal. My hon. Friend is probably aware that fishermen believe that international law requires complete removal, but that is not the Government's view. We believe that partial removal is possible under international law. We understand, however, the fisherman's reservations. I had discussions with fishermen's organisations as recently as the middle of last week, and we shall continue to discuss with them what we are doing.

Will the Minister give way?

I think that I have given way enough already. I shall be replying on behalf of the Government and I shall answer all detailed questions at that stage. I am aware that many other right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.

I was saying that the Bill does not set standards or norms for abandonment. These will follow in the regulations that the Bill, when enacted, will enable the Government to put before the House. The die is not being cast irrevocably or rigidly. We do not believe that that would be sensible. By asking the House to allow this proposed legislation to take its place on the statute book, we are enabling the oil companies especially to make sensible financial provision and clarifying what is likely to be expected of them.

By introducing regulations at a later stage rather than setting them out in primary legislation, we are making it much easier to vary what may be required in the light of experience and in response to changes in international law. That is the reason for our approach. The Bill makes it clear that ultimately responsibility will rest with the owners of installations for their final removal. Responsibility will rest with them whether removal is partial or complete.

The early clauses deal wholly with abandonment. Under clause 1, the Secretary of State will be able to require those responsible to draw up programmes for the removal of installations and to set out details of their programme. The Secretary of State is given power to draw up his own programme where the owner is unable or unwilling to frame his own, and will be able to recover the costs that he may incur in so doing. I hope that we shall not be required to use that power, but it is important that we have it in the event of default. The power is set out in clause 5.

Under clause 8, strict responsibilities and duties are laid on those responsible for submitting a programme. They will have a duty to ensure that the programme is carried out properly. In the last resort, the Secretary of State will be able to arrange for the abandonment and to recover the cost of so doing. Again, that is something that I hope will not arise in practice. Clause 12 makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with any of the requirements set out in this part of the Bill.

Am I right in my understanding that the Bill widens considerably the numbers and types of people who can be served with a notice by the Secretary of State, taking them well beyond those that come within the normal limited liability regulations? Is there anything in the record of the companies which have operating in the North sea which would justify such a widening?

My hon. Friend anticipates precisely that to which I was about to turn. The House will realise from what I have said already that the financial costs of abandonment are extremely high. The commitments of the oil companies will vary greatly given the partnership arrangements, for example. Under clause 2—this is probably causing my hon. Friend concern—the Secretary of State may require companies to satisfy him that they can fulfil their obligations. That is why the liability under the clause has been spread widely. If a company failed to fulfil its obligations, the cost of so doing, which could be very large, would fall on the taxpayer. Therefore, the Secretary of State and the Government have an important responsibility to ensure that the interests of the taxpayer and the country are protected.

Under legislation in other areas, provisions have been made for spreading the liability widely. I would be happy to return to those provisions later and I am sure that they will be returned to later during discussion on the Bill. I am aware, as interventions from other hon. Members have shown, that some oil companies consider that their liabilities under the clause are too severe. Given the risks that exist—I mentioned that the Secretary of State may be required to carry out certain things in the event of a company not fulfilling its obligations—there is a responsibility to ensure that companies live up to their obligations and can fulfil them. We are not asking for anything unreasonable and we would be failing in our duties if we did not make that provision. Equally, if the oil companies believe that there are better ways of achieving the same objective of protecting the taxpayer and the public interest, we would consider them.

During consultations over the past year, several suggestions have been made to the oil companies which they have not taken up or proceeded with. In the absence of any other counter-proposal from the oil companies and their organisations that can meet practically and sensibly the fair obligation which the Government believe should be imposed upon them, we have drafted the Bill as it stands. I assure the House that we shall closely consider fishing interests when deciding on the degree to which abandonment shall take place. We shall also consult the oil companies on whether there is a better way to achieve that objective. I emphasise to the House that the objective is fair. The Government are committed to it and, in principle, I do not believe that the oil companies regard it as unreasonable. However, if there is a better way to achieve the objective, I would be happy to consider it.

Is not the Minister faced with the problem that the initial stage, when the revenue is tumbling in, is not the time for decommissioning? At the end of the fields' useful lives, when the revenue is falling off, companies may not be in a state to give an assurance that they will make provision for their liabilities out of future earnings which do not yet exist? Should not the Minister require the establishment of a fund?

That idea has been put around and discussed from time to time. There may be a solution down that road, but it is one to which the oil companies would have to make a major contribution and in which they would have to play a major part. We have been discussing this matter for a year and no specific proposals have been made. Therefore, the Government have rightly made their proposals. If suggestions are made for another route, I would consider them.

As the House will realise from my remarks, we have endeavoured in the Bill to adopt a flexible approach which seeks to balance different interests, including costs, and which uses regulations, to establish standards of what may be expected in the case of abandonment. An advantage of that approach is that the huge variety of different structures and installations can be approached case by case. That is the only sensible way to achieve some of the objectives.

I hope that the Bill makes clear the Government's determination to ensure that the industry discharges its obligations. It also meets the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), that now is the time to plan, rather than leaving it until the last minute when companies may not be clear about their obligations and may therefore be less able to provide for them. The fact that the Bill is being introduced now rather than leaving it too late in the day will ensure that proper provision is made to cover extreme eventualities.

The abandonment provisions of the Bill have another advantage. By endeavouring to widen the debate and set out the framework under which abandonment will be approached, an opportunity will also be provided for what I would loosely and inaccurately describe as the supply industry offshore. The term "supply industry" is used for those industries that work in support of the oil industry in supplying all the goods and services. Abandonment will also require a supply industry and the development of new technology. Research is already taking place.

This weekend an article in a Sunday paper mentioned a company in Aberdeen which was already actively pursuing and trying to evaluate the opportunities for getting involved in that area. At present, the industry is rightly concerned with development rather than abandonment. None the less, given that the United Kingdom is in the lead in terms of legislation on this matter, British industry has the scope in terms of technology and of capacity to move ahead of industries in other parts of the world by getting involved in activity, first, on our continental shelf and, I hope, on the continental shelves of other countries as opportunities occur.

Finally, I shall mention briefly the later parts of the Bill. Part II, which deals with royalties, updates the royalty regime by rationalising procedures for royalty accounting and for arbitration. It also provides the enabling power, related to part I of the Bill, to allow the repayment of royalty to make allowance for abandonment costs. I apologise to the House unreservedly for the complicated nature of the schedules which refer to the clauses relating to royalties. I tried to do that more simply, but we are dealing with amendments to seven different sets of model clauses. The approach that we adopted in the drafting of the Bill was the same as in previous Bills where amendments had to be made.

I promise the House that, in Committee, I will provide full explanatory notes on that part of the Bill. Hon. Members may be even more confused when they see the length and complication of the notes, but I shall endeavour to provide them. I shall also endeavour in Committee to rewrite the schedules, although not in the sense of rewriting them as part of the Bill. I shall try to submit to the Committee draft model clauses which incorporate the amendments in the schedules. Precisely how those schedules are applied will perhaps be made clearer. I hope that that will be helpful to the Committee, as the procedure appears to be enormously complicated for what, in other respects, are not enormously dramatic changes and tidying-up measures.

On part III, I wish to pick out two important items. Around rigs, platforms and other installations there will be automatic rig safety zones of 500 m. At present, each safety zone must be submitted in an order to the House by statutory instrument. Where a safety zone is revoked, an order must again be submitted to the House. The provisions on safety zones represent a direct response to representations from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which asked that the Government should consider this approach. I am happy that we have been able to respond. It will certainly save me placing a lot of orders before the House.

It is worth reflecting that only about 30 orders in 1981 involved establishing or revoking safety zones, whereas up until the end of October this year about 159 orders have had to be submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The provisions represent a sensible tidying up. The Committee has been very patient, as it has been pressing us for some time. This is our first legislative opportunity to oblige, and I am happy to do so.

In recent years, those involved in the industry have expressed worries about pipelines. This Bill represents our first legislative opportunity for action. It enables the Secretary of State to prohibit the use or testing of any pipelines until specified steps have been taken by their owners to ensure that funds are available to discharge any liability for loss or damage, and so on. One or two recent public inquiries on pipelines have raised this question. It has been examined carefully and fully, and I am happy that we can now respond to those who have raised the issue. They had a legitimate point, and subject to the agreement of the House, it will be incorporated in the Bill.

The Bill is important. I make no apology for having dwelt at length on abandonment. I hope that I have anticipated some detailed questions and answered some of the interventions made. The issue is complicated, and is surrounded by many doubts and uncertainties as to the best way to proceed. As yet, for example, we do not have the technical knowledge as to how best to deal with some of the structures. I ask the House to put this legislation on the statute book, because I believe that it will give us the necessary legislative framework, and will help to concentrate the minds of those in charge of oil companies and supply industries, as well at the minds of those in other international forums on the problems. A flexible approach means that we should be able to react to changes in policies and decisions, particularly at an international level, as the moment of first abandonment comes closer.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I shall follow the Minister in one respect, in that I shall devote my remarks almost entirely to part I of the Bill. The Bill primarily creates the legislative framework with which to deal with the abandonment issues and the decommissioning of oil platforms in our waters. The Bill's other clauses involve miscellaneous questions that still, however, deserve scrutiny. I think, particularly, of those provisions relating to the royalty repayments that are involved in the whole question of covering the costs of abandonment.

Like the Minister, I shall concentrate on the major issues contained in part I of the Bill, which deals with the abandonment of oil and gas platforms on our continental shelf. We also realise the enormous, awesome implications of abandonment. It presents us with great technical challenges. I think, too, of the fiscal implications of abandonment and of the profound concern felt by many of those involved in fishing and marine affairs, who make their livings from the North sea.

Those issues, and the awesome challenges presented by the prospect of having to abandon such huge structures, raise major concerns. They, in turn, must be seen against the background of major international obligations and of the search for international standards. That was the reason for my intervention. I am still rather surprised that the Minister did not elaborate as much as I want to do on the international context in which the legislation is being debated. The problems involved in abandoning oil and gas platforms are to the oil and gas industries what decommissioning is to the nuclear power industry, although without such emotive connotations.

Abandonment presents those industries with an awesome technical and financial challenge, and with major concerns with respect to fishing and the marine environment. Those issues and concerns must be set against the search for a new set of internationally agreed standards and criteria. I think not only of how those standards will affect the North sea but of the major decisions made at the law of the sea conferences in 1982. We must judge the timing and character of the legislative proposals against such major domestic and international issues.

In some respects, I find the legislation odd, to say the least. I shall go on to explain why but first, I should underline what the Minister said about the consequences of those challenges. As he said, we are talking about nearly 150 installations. Although they are an intrinsic part of the Bill, he did not mention that for every installation there are about 2,800 miles of pipeline. It is not only the last part of the Bill that deals with pipelines, but the whole of part I. That part of the Bill deals not only with abandoning the installations but with abandoning large tracts of pipeline on the sea bed. In a way, they present just as difficult a problem.

As the Minister said, many of the installations are very large, and form part of the approximately 6,000 installations that are scattered all over the world. But the major difference between our installations and the others is that almost 90 per cent. of the other installations stand in relatively shallow waters that are no more than 40 m deep. Only 360 of the 6,000 installations stand in waters that are deeper than 75 m. As the Minister said, we have a share of them, so it is only right and responsible of us to address ourselves to the argument as early as possible. I hope that the House will agree that we should not try to diminish the size of the problem. For example, I have heard it said that, compared with the sums earned from the North sea by the oil industry, Scottish trawler and fishing interests involve only small incomes. But the House should not consider the matter in those terms. I have also read articles saying that there are 20,000 shipwrecks recorded in United Kingdom waters, thus trying to minimise the potential problem of abandoning our oil installations.

May I point out to my hon. Friend that a modern stern trawler can fish in depths of up to 500 fathoms? Even a smaller, side trawler can fish in depths of 300 fathoms if it has the right equipment.

I hope that my hon. Friend will join us on the Committee, as his knowledge and expertise will be required in the sort of Committee that we hope to have.

We should not minimise abandonment, despite what is said in some contexts about the amount of debris that already exists on the sea bed. As the Minister said, 18 of the installations stand in the central North sea. Fourteen are major installations, of which eight, nine or even 10 are major concrete structures. Those present technical and financial challenges, and that is what has prompted the Government to introduce the Bill.

As the Minister admits, abandonment is an intrinsic part of the Bill. The question is whether we allow partial removal, toppling or alternative uses for the platforms. Under the 1958 convention, complete removal has been the historical position. The Bill would allow the oil industry to bring forward proposals for a combination of possible solutions to the problems involving partial removal, toppling, the possible towing to and sinking in other parts of the North sea or other uses for the platforms.

We recognise that there are enormous technical problems in trying to remove a concrete platform. The literature contains a romantic description of the champagne cork effect—if we try to pull out or remove the enormous concrete structures that are deeply embedded in the sea bed, there will be a terrible and awesome effect on the whole structure. The rapid lifting and rising will present an enormous danger to life.

We in no way underestimate the nature and character of the problems associated with abandonment. Hon. Members will have researched the issue and will know that some fascinating work has been done by the Heriot-Watt university into possible alternative uses. One suggestion is that one or two of these installations could be turned into casinos. It might be a bit of a gamble to have a night out on the Thistle, and I would not fancy it.

However, there are some interesting suggestions for alternative uses for the platforms. For example, one or two might be used for marine search or for communications and navigation assistance. However, in the majority of cases, the issue is one of either partial clearance, toppling or complete removal.

The hon. Gentleman said that many hon. Members have researched the problems of abandonment. During his research, did he find any evidence of research at the time when the rigs were originally designed that would assist the abandonment programme? I have found no such evidence and it would be interesting to know whether he has found any.

The hon. Gentleman has made a most interesting point. A major retrospective criticism of the development of these rigs is that some aspects of design could have been done in such a way as to facilitate the handling of the problems that we are now facing. However, in view of the enormous technological breakthroughs that have enabled us to achieve so much during the past 20 years or so, we should not be too censorious.

The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is on to a good point. We are now beginning to realise fully the character and nature of the problem. Some interesting studies show how designs might evolve to tackle the problems, and there might be some interesting design techniques for demolition. Although that appears to be a contradiction in terms, designing for demolition will create many challenges in engineering and physical terms. I have read only a little about that aspect of the problem, but no doubt we shall have time to discuss it in Committee.

When considering partial abandonment, toppling and case-by-case programming, we must ensure that those who are listening understand what we are saying. There is a suggestion for international criteria for the standard that should be established for partial removal in the deepest waters. It requires that no more than 40 m of clearance from the sea should be the base for partial clearance. In other words, some of the platforms will have to be reduced to 40 in below sea level. We might be asked to approve enormous standing structures on the sea bed. Put in terms that we can understand and appreciate, that is what partial toppling involves. We are discussing structures in 500 or 600 ft of water. By seeking partial toppling of a mere 40 in we are talking about an underwater level for pylons of 300 or 400 ft.

We shall have to devise a set of arrangements to justify that proposal. However, at least we would know what we mean by such terms as partial abandonment and partial toppling. The lack of clarity is the reason for the real concern of the fishing industry about these arguments—especially in the trawling industry and those who might ship in the area.

We must recognise the shared concern of the United States and others about the defence aspects of leaving considerable structures or debris on the seabed after abandonment. With a Bill that contains such sweeping powers and the need for case by case solutions, we desperately need sensible and clear guidelines from the Government. Although the codes and criteria are very important to abandonment programmes, we must question whether powers in the form described in the Bill should be granted to the Government. That is one of our criticisms of the Government's approach. It is not emotive to draw clear and specific attention to the consequences of leaving such huge structures in the North sea as anticipated in the Bill.

I will not deal now with the specific worries of the fishing industry, as they will be dealt with later by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The Opposition recognise the Minister's interest and concern for the profound anxieties of the fishing and trawling interests about the consequences of policies that might be adopted under the Bill. It is important that we establish that those interests have rights.

One of our major criticisms of the Bill is that third parties are given no right to a hearing or consultation during programme making. The Minister might verbally promise the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that there will be consultation on the regulations, and so on. I should like him to tell me under which clause a third party's statutory rights and interests are fully to be taken into account.

Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far, he should read the clauses in relation to the drawing-up of the regulations. They make it clear that there has to be consultation. There is a legal obligation of consultation when those regulations are drawn up.