asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on current electricity supplies.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on the present availability of electricity supplies.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made in the House on 25th January 1974.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures for the ballot in the miners' unions for a strike today showed conclusively that the Government were right to restrain the use of electricity as from several months ago?

I shall not comment on the miners' ballot today as there is to be a meeting at No. 10 this afternoon with representatives of the TUC. But my hon. Friend is right; the figures of the rundown of coal stocks over the last few weeks have shown that we should now be in a parlous state had we not taken action as we did in December.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the electricity supply industry is as well organised as it should be to cope with the present emergency? What advice does he take on these matters?

The electricity supply industry is extremely well organised to cope with the emergency, in that stocks of fuel—both coal and oil—will give it a good many weeks of endurance, even if we have to face the damage caused by a miners' strike. We take advice from a wide variety of sources on these matters.

What would the reserve stocks of coal be now if they had decreased at the rate of use prior to the three-day working week?

That is a hypothetical question. At the time we introduced the three-day week, the power engineers were still in dispute, we had no idea what the weather would be like, and we had many weeks of winter ahead of us. As it appeared to the Government then, and as it appears to most impartial commentators, the Government took the right action in calling for restrictions as early as they did to ensure that we had the endurance needed.

Is it not clear that if the Government had allowed free negotiations between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, the £1,500 million worth of production that has already been lost would not have been lost? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister, now that the silent majority in the mining industry has spoken in support of its leaders, that a settlement must be achieved on a fair and honourable basis?

I have already said that a meeting with representatives of the TUC is taking place at No. 10 this afternoon, and I do not wish to comment further on that. As to whether there will be freedom to negotiate, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government, like many other Western Governments, are determined to combat the domestic causes of inflation as best they can. The counter-inflation policy, as the reports of the Pay Board and the Price Commission have shown, is making a contribution to that end.

asked the Minister for Energy what legislative plans he has to compel householders to economise in the use of electricity.

None at present. I am confident that householders will continue to make sufficient economies voluntarily.

Can the Minister say where this silly and sinister idea came from? Does he not recognise that even if the worst happened and a strike took place, such legislation as has been suggested would be completely unacceptable and, indeed, unenforceable, and that a knock at the door at three o'clock in the morning is not part of "A Better Tomorrow" that we were promised?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there would be grave objections to legislation of this sort, but I think he will be aware that many industrialists who are facing extreme difficulties as a result of the restrictions which have been imposed on them feel that, from their point of view, it would not be unreasonable to impose restrictions on householders. Every time I have referred to this possibility I have been very careful to stress that any such controls have serious objections. The problem of enforcement to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not the least of those.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the miners' strike does take place rota disconnections to domestic consumers will be inevitable, and can he predict when that might start to take effect?

That is a hypothetical question. I recognise that rota cuts might well be one of the ways in which the Government would have to respond to a strike, but I should not want to commit myself on that today.

How can the Minister justify the farce of closing down television at 10.30 pm, since it saves less than one-thousandth of a normal day's consumption? Is this part of the Government's psychological warfare—its propaganda to put the people against the miners? If so, it is failing.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not done with that in mind at all. At a time when it is necessary to ask the public to make substantial economies in the domestic use of electricity, now to relax in terms of television hours would, I think, not be understood.

Would not the public respond even more to voluntary restraint if more were done to switch off more of the public motorway and road lighting than has already been done?

Switch off dishwashers.

I can tell my hon. Friend that the vast majority of local authorities—with exceptions that could perhaps be numbered on the fingers of one hand—are collaborating fully with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who has called for a 50 per cent. cut in the use of electricity for street lighting. This is being done by many authorities in a very sophisticated way, keeping lights on the most dangerous roads and reducing them substantially on roads where the danger is less. I pay tribute to local authorities for their collaboration in this matter.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister for Energy whether he will provide for discretion to be exercised in the application of emergency regulations on the supply and consumption of electricity to take account of difficulties caused on religious grounds.

A general discretion is impracticable, but the option allowing industry and commerce to use electricity on Wednesday instead of Saturday will, I hope, alleviate these difficulties.

While agreeing that there has been an improvement, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is unusual and exceptional to ride roughshod over religious beliefs without any consultation? Now that he has the opportunity, will he ensure that these consultations take place? Is he aware that in my constituency the Jewish community was particularly hard hit by the first version of the three-day week?

I personally have had consultations with representatives of a number of Jewish organisations, including a representation from the Chief Rabbi, so it would be quite wrong to suggest that we did not give serious consideration to the views that were expressed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that consultation after a decision has been taken and announced is not consultation at all? It is the setting down of a diktat. Is he also aware that there is a small but significant number of firms in my constituency with owners and/or employees who are observing Jews which have still not been given any concession, and their three-day week is de facto a a one-and-a-half day week?

As I probably knew the hon. Gentleman's constituency even before he did—

Before 1930?

Before the hon. Gentleman was the Member. I understand the position of small industries there, the problem of the orthodox Jew, and work on Friday, which is a serious matter and has not been alleviated by the Wednesday and Saturday recommendation. I realise that, and this matter is being seriously considered by the Government.

Does the Minister exercise any of his famous discretion in the matter of sport? Is he aware, for example, that 12 men can play badminton for four or five hours in the evening in a school ablaze with light, while householders nearby are being exhorted by people like himself to economise? Does the right hon. Gentleman use his discretion in this matter?

Certainly my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport has cooperated with my Department in order to ensure that wherever lighting is used indoors for sporting purposes it is kept to the minimum.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you be good enough, with your usual kindness to hon. Members, to provide an opportunity to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy to withdraw his statement that he knew my constituency before I did, in view of the fact that I lived in it 45 years ago, that I was married in it 42 years ago, and that my two daughters were born in it 41 years ago and 38 years ago, respectively?

I shall be delighted to withdraw any inference against the hon. Gentleman, and I state only that I was the candidate for the constituency 25 years ago.

asked the Minister for Energy what is his latest estimate of the cost per kilowatt of electricity supplies to the national grid based on fuel oil at current prices, and on estimated prices for 1974 on home-produced coal assuming all subsidies are removed and the latest National Coal Board offer is implemented, imported coal, and nuclear sources, respectively.

Future generating costs will depend on a large number of factors which it is impossible to quantify. I am asking the Chairman of the CEGB to write to my hon. Friend on current costs.

Is it not important that the nation should have more information about this? Is it not a fact that electricity generated from oil is still more expensive than electricity generated from coal? Is it not also true that if the CEGB were charged economic prices by the NCB, particularly when any offer to the miners is implemented, and if subsidies were included in that price, imported coal would be competitive with home-produced coal?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the price of fuel oil will depend very considerably on the arrangements which are being made at the moment concerning the importation of oil into this country. To believe that one can give a single figure at this time would be unrealistic, but I agree completely that there is need for these factors to be made known to the public, when they can be published.

Do not those facts demonstrate clearly that the only sensible thing for the Government to do now is to negotiate a sensible agreement with the miners?

The hon. Gentleman will realise from the tone of all the questions today that the Government believe that there is an absolute need to continue with a degree of counter-inflation policy but at the same time to be able to ensure that a settlement with the miners can be made. That is what the present negotiations are about.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the price of coal can now rise a great deal while still remaining competitive with oil and other fuels? Will he estimate by how much the price of coal could rise while remaining competitive?

No. Sir. It is impossible at this stage even to know what the average price of imported oil will be over the next three months.

asked the Minister for Energy what savings have been made in petrol consumption by private motorists since the 50 mph speed limit was introduced; and what estimate in percentage terms have been calculated in a full year.

It is not possible to quantify the overall savings already made which can be attributed directly to the introduction of the 50 mph speed limit, nor to estimate such savings in a full year. However, as an indication of the sort of fuel savings that can be achieved, a typical 1,500/1,600 cc private car travelling at a steady speed of 50 mph on a motorway will consume around 20 per cent. less petrol than one travelling at 70 mph.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the recent price increases in petrol, most motorists can still drive just as many miles for less cost if they observe the 50 mph speed limit? For that reason, will he confer with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries about mounting a publicity campaign to inform motorists of the savings that they can make?

It is certainly true that the continuation of a 50 mph speed limit provides not only financial savings but major savings in the use of petroleum. The 10 per cent. current reduction in deliveries of petrol will mean a saving of about 1½ million tons over a full year. I shall certainly consider whether more publicity should be given to the financial aspect.

Without wishing to be made a PPS, may I congratulate the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on not having been bounced into premature rationing of petrol last year?

asked the Minister for Energy why on 17th January his Department decided to change the text of advertisements for publication in the Press on 18th January, and to cancel advertisements due for publication on 21st January.

The proposed advertisements had been planned to explain the combined effects of the various orders restricting the use of electricity by industry and commerce. When it became evident that certain relaxations might be possible, I decided that to proceed with the prepared advertisements could lead to confusion.

Does the hon. Gentleman deny that this change from total panic to sudden optimistic exhortation by his Department was not based on a change in the fuel stocks position but was the result of an opportunist switch in political strategy? Is it really fair for his publicity department to be asked to brush up its advertising copy in the dark?

The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong about panic in the Department. What the Department was seeking to achieve was to inform the public had we been able to go to a greater use of electricity for industry. When it became evident that the miners would ballot, the statement was made by my hon. Friend in the House. For that reason, the advertisement was not carried through and a savings advertisement was put in its place. That advertisement was ready for substitution and was worked in in the most efficient manner.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will supply, or arrange to be supplied, to companies with a substantial export commitment additional supplies of oil so that further use may be made of standby generators.

I am considering whether limited supplementary allocations could be made available to run standby generators for industrial production.

I am much obliged for that answer. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that those who participate in the new Iranian deal will be able to use their oil for their own requirements, and that it will be a reward for the initiative of those who have been able to put aside standby generators for this very purpose?

I realise the use which industry has been able to make of standby generation. Of course, the Government want it to continue, subject only to overriding problems concerning electricity and supplies in the weeks ahead.

Is the Minister aware that at a time of increasing difficulties in exports and imports Britain's chief export earner, the car industry, is being strangled by the three-day week? Does he not think that the Government should move with rather more urgency, come to terms with the miners, find a settlement and put this vital industry back on to a five-day week?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will make that speech just as strongly to the mining union as he does to this House. May I also correct him on a matter of fact? The major part of the motor industry is considered as a continuous process and is working on a 65 per cent. full five-day week, not a three-day week.

Will my hon. Friend accept that firms in my constituency will be pleased that he is seriously considering providing additional supplies for standby generators? Will he further accept that firms in my constituency, both those on continuous process working and others, are managing to keep up to about 85 per cent. of production with the assistance of these generators, thus keeping up exports?

I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I thank industry and the unions, too, for the way in which they have co-operated in many instances to keep production as high as they have.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will take steps to ensure that all members of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board declare their personal financial interests in any companies likely to be linked in any way with the advice given to the Minister by the board.

The Nuclear Power Advisory Board is an advisory and not a statutory or executive body. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who chairs the board, is satisfied that the financial interests of the members do not conflict with their duties on the board.

Many Members will consider that a disgraceful answer. Is the Minister aware that no reputable British nuclear engineer or British physicist believes it necessary for Britain to abandon its own gas technology and purchase light-water reactors from the United States? Is he further aware that Lord Aldington, for instance, is not only the Deputy Chairman of GEC and Deputy Chairman of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, but Chairman of the National Nuclear Corporation? Therefore, if he advocates going to the United States to buy reactors for a commercial reason, surely the Minister should turn a deaf ear to those who are likely to make personal profit from the Government's decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Aldington is not Deputy Chairman of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board. I correct the hon. Member on that. The board brings together many people with wide knowledge and experience in the nuclear sphere, as well as some people with a completely independent view. Just as hon. Members have wide experience and specialised knowledge to bring to bear on the affairs, for instance, of the Select Committee, so I think it would be quite wrong for the Government to refuse to accept advice from those who have knowledge and experience in industry.

Will the Secretary of State for Energy follow the bad example set by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in himself taking the chairmanship of this advisory board, which is contrary to the advice given by the Select Committee on Science and Technology?

My right hon. and noble Friend is taking the chair of the board. In the circumstances it would have been extremely difficult to change that practice in midstream as it were. I am quite confident that the advice that we will get from the board's members will be the best that they can give, having regard to their knowledge, experience and skills in dealing with this industry over many years.

When will the Department set up a chief scientist's organisation to evaluate such matters within the Department of Energy?

That is a matter which we have under consideration.

I acknowledge that the Minister will not wish to comment on the Select Committee's report today, but does he not agree that the taking of evidence in public from leading individuals in the nuclear sphere, and in particular from four members of the advisory board, has increased rather than decreased our chances of reaching the right decision? Similarly, does he not agree that public confidence in the Government's final decision would be ensured if they published the advice that they received from the board?

I would not wish to comment on the procedures followed by the Select Committee. I have, of course, read its report and a great deal of the evidence tendered to it, and I have little doubt that this will be invaluable in helping the House and the Government to reach a conclusion. The advice tendered by the Nuclear Power Advisory Board will, like any other advice given to the Government, not be published, because it is essential that it should be given entirely openly and clearly to the Government without its members fearing the consequences if it were to be published.

asked the Minister for Energy when he expects to be able to announce a controlled retail price for paraffin.

Under an order which was laid before Parliament on 21st December 1973 the maximum retail price of paraffin became subject to control the next day.

Is the Minister aware that at least in my part of London paraffin is being sold at many differing prices and that many people—for example, old-age pensioners—are having to tramp the streets to try to save the odd penny or two per gallon? What does he intend to do about it?

There is a maximum price. If retailers are choosing to attract custom by selling below it I should have thought that that was something the hon. Gentleman would applaud.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency several retailers are not selling paraffin at all, because the wholesale price is too great? Would it not be advisable to control the wholesale price as well?

I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says because my Department has had no recent complaints of customers being unable to buy paraffin. We are, of course, aware of the problems of the retail market and we have this matter under investigation in conjunction with the oil industry emergency committee.

Is the Minister aware that he would be hard pressed to find anyone selling paraffin below the recommended or stipulated price? Will he bear in mind that the main customers for paraffin are the elderly, and that they are having difficulty not merely in getting cheap paraffin but in getting any paraffin at all? Will he further bear in mind that when they can get paraffin they often have to pay well above the price laid down by the Government? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the London Press and the Sunday Mirror, in particular, giving examples of retailers blatantly ignoring the price set down by the Government?

The Government are well aware that supplies of domestic paraffin are used substantially by the poor and the elderly. That is why, under the allocation scheme, supplies of paraffin at present being made available for domestic use are running at 120 per cent. of supplies in the comparable period last year. For that reason we want to make absolutely sure that there is no shortage. If the hon. Member knows of specific cases of retailers not observing the price control to which I referred in my original answer I hope he will bring them to the attention of my Department.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister for Energy what further proposals he has for saving power during the present shortage.

I shall take whatever steps may be necessary in the light of the developing situation.

As the present energy crisis is entirely the result of the Government's determination to have a confrontation with the miners and thereby break the miners' determination to fight for what they believe is right, and this has manifestly failed, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time the Government called an end to this farce? Will he close his mind to the pernicious suggestion from his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) to cut down any further on motorway or street lighting, which would nullify the saving in life that has been brought about by the 50 mph speed limit? Does he not think he ought to look at the waste of electricity and power by discotheques, bingo halls, night clubs and similar establishments, which are allowed to continue through the night using tremendous amounts of power and electricity?

While not for a moment accepting the hon. Lady's premise, perhaps I may make the position clear about places of entertainment. They are subject to the heating and lighting restrictions which were introduced in November. The hon. Lady will have seen the advertisements this weekend in which we have drawn public attention to the continuation of those regulations.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest incentive that could be given to householders to save power would be to get the regional electricity boards to change their tariff system so that the more electricity a household uses the greater the cost per unit, instead of the reverse, which is the case at the moment?

I have seen my hon. Friend's suggestion before. There would be great difficulties in short-term tariff adjustments for the purposes he has in mind.

Is the Minister aware that his latest suggestion that people are serving the national interest by going to bingo halls so as not to use electricity at home simply makes the situation more ridiculous? Is he also aware that there is a moderate majority among industrialists who would like to see the acceptance of the TUC proposals for a settlement? It is his responsibility as Minister for Energy to convey to the Prime Minister the fact that industrialists do not accept the leadership given by the CBI which does not represent its members on this question.

The right hon. Gentleman was going very wide with the last part of his question. On the first part, which arose out of the Question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), the Government's concern is to see that electricity is saved. We have no wish to encourage people to do this or that; we wish to encourage the saving of electricity, and on that we take the advice that I indicated to the House.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if domestic householders were given some acknowledgement of the support that they have given the Government in the present crisis it might encourage them to save even more?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of saying in the House what I have said on a number of occasions through the media. The Government are extremely grateful to the millions of householders who are making great efforts to save electricity in the national interest.

Will the Minister reconsider his answer about the use of electricity for gambling, and so on? It is causing great resentment. Of course, by not going to a discotheque one may use electricity at home. By not turning on the television one may turn on an electric blanket, or even read a book, which presumably would be fatal.

The closing remarks of my earlier answer may not have been fully heard in the House. I reiterate that we are discussing with the bodies representing these interests what further contribution they can make towards saving electricity.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will now conduct a reappraisal of the Severn Barrage scheme, in view of the reduced differential in the cost of power generated thereby in relation to the cost of power generated by conventional fuel caused by the increased price of oil.

I have little to add to my statement made in the Adjournment debate on 9th January. A tidal power station must be compared with the cheapest alternative source of electricity, which, in the future, is most likely to be nuclear. A recent review within my Department indicated that a barrage in the Severn would not be economically viable, but I stated that we would keep this matter under active review.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that unless and until a full hydrological survey of this project is undertaken nobody will be able to do other than put forward opinions as to its viability or otherwise? In view of his latest letter to me, will he now get together with the CEGB and Bristol University to see whether he is prepared to consider setting up just such a hydrological study?

As I implied in my letter, I am only too willing to ask the CEGB to take all the active advice it can on this matter and then advise Her Majesty's Government.

Will the Minister also consider seriously the possibilities in relation to the Morecambe barrage and the Solway Firth? Will he consider the other tidal estuaries whose viabilities have now been affected by the sharp rise in oil prices? Will he look also at the coal mining industry in exactly the same way, because the economics are equally applicable and make complete nonsense of the Government's policy in relation to wages in the mining industry in the post-oil-crisis era?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to an Adjournment debate. As for the hon. Member's suggestion about wages, he must bear in mind the overall desire by both sides of the House to ensure that inflation is overcome.

The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Adjournment debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). As the hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are making a reappraisal of indigenous energy resources because of the oil price and energy crisis, will he assure the House that in that reappraisal the Government are studying all aspects of indigenous energy resources? I emphasise the production of oil from coal and shale, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to be found in the constituencies of West Lothian and Midlothian.

I am only too willing to repeat that the new Department is considering all forms of energy and reconsidering all previous investigations into methods of obtaining energy.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Canadian Atomic Energy Authorities and Mr. Lorne Gray of Atomic Energy Canada on the possibility of British-Canadian joint co-operation in the development of CANDU type reactors and British steam generating heavy water reactors, in view of the import content of light-water reactors, involving the purchase of pressure vessels, steam generators and control rod drives from the United States of America.

A number of discussions have already been held about CANDU, and more are due to take place this week.

In the absence of a chief scientist's organisation, which astonishes my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), who is a former Minister, would it be unfair to ask whether the Government dispute Mr. Lorne Gray's assertion that if we took CANDU we could have a reliable electricity supply from it within six years?

Those are matters that will be explored when we meet Dr. Gray and the Canadian Minister for Energy, Minerals and Resources and the Ontario Minister for Energy, I hope later this week. There are obviously extremely important issues to be discussed and I do not wish to comment further at this stage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the merits of SGHW have been consistently advocated by hon. Members on both sides of the House for a number of years and that, equally consistently, the Government of the day have underestimated those merits? As the SGHW is technically close to CANDU in concept, is it not a reasonable compromise between indigenous technology and imported technology to get together on what are two similar reactor systems?

These are immensely difficult questions that we have under study with the help of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, and we shall certainly take note of the Select Committee's report, which was published this morning. Beyond that I should not wish to go at this stage.

Does the Minister accept that many of us are astonished and seriously disturbed at the abolition of the chief scientist's division of his Department, which it inherited from the old Ministry of Power? Is he aware that this division, limited as it was in size, was eminently suitable for technical and economic evaluation of the subject referred to in my hon. Friend's Question and such matters as barrage schemes which have been raised at other times? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider taking action to re-establish the chief scientist's division without delay?

I have already indicated that the organisation and staffing of my Department was one of the matters to which we turned our attention as soon as the Department was set up. Clearly, the question of scientific advice, as well as economic advice, and so on, is of the greatest importance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is daily engaging the attention of Ministers.

In view of the need to take an early decision in the matter, will my right hon. Friend say when the House is likely to debate the subject?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but it is fair to say that he has already indicated that after the publication of the report—and it has been issued today—a debate would be appropriate before the Government reached or announced a decision.

asked the Minister for Energy what is the current level of coal and oil stocks held in the United Kingdom; and what were the comparable figures for 4th February 1973.

asked the Minister for Energy what is his estimate of the number of days' reserve stocks of oil and coal currently held; and how it compares with the figures for 1st February 1971, 1972 and 1973.

asked the Minister for Energy what is the current level of coal stocks, distributed and undistributed; and what are the comparable figures for 1973.

asked the Minister for Energy what is the present level of coal and oil stocks at Central Generating Electricity Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board power stations.

The latest estimates of coal and oil stocks were published last Thursday. Oil stocks are lower than in the last three years. Coal stocks are higher than in February 1971 but lower than in February 1973. In 1972 figures could not be collected due to the miners' strike. With permission, I will publish the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the Minister agree that the figures, though perhaps lower, are not so significantly lower as to justify the premature imposition of the three-day week? Are the Government now prepared to agree that the three-day week was imposed prematurely in an attempt to coerce the miners? Does the hon. Gentleman now admit, too, that a four-day week, with perhaps other savings of energy thrown in, would produce a far better climate for the negotiations which the Government must now have with the mine workers after the emphatic ballot about which we have heard today?

I most definitely reject the suggestion that the three-day electricity working week was unnecessary. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the facts. In the eight weeks before the regulations were introduced, coal stocks fell by 4·1 million tons, compared with 02 million tons the previous year. If stocks had continued to be depleted at 900,000 tons a week, which is the amount by which they were being depleted two weeks before the regulations were introduced, by now we should be very nearly at a critical level.

Is it not totally irresponsible for Opposition Members to criticise the Government for having taken the prudent measure of conserving coal and oil resources at this critical time? Would it not be more realistic for the Opposition to co-operate with the TUC in trying to get a settlement?

I sometimes wonder whether Opposition Members want a settlement and to see the industry back in order.

Is the Minister aware that if a miners' strike takes place now, given that the three-day week has reduced power station coal consumption by less than 500,000 tons a week, the 6 million tons critical level will still be reached as early as the last week of March? Even if we had a two-and-a-half-day week, that critical stage would be reached four days later than that. Why waste another £1 billion or £2 billion in lost production before being obliged to give the miners another £20 million or £30 million, anyway?

The hon. Gentleman's figuring entirely ignores the amount of fuel oil that the electricity generating stations may be able to use. That factor is entirely a matter of endurance. Any Government should have full contingency plans to protect the electricity supply of the country against whatever might arise.

Do the figures available to the Minister bear out the assessment that has been made by Dr. Finniston as to the available supplies of coking coal, with the sombre implication that they would enable the steel industry to proceed for only about eight weeks?

Questions about the position of the steel industry should be put to my right hon. Friend. None the less, the iron and steel industry is still the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. Let it be clearly understood that the problems of obtaining coking coal are serious and are a major problem in the supply of steel to the country as a whole.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the House can sympathise with him to some extent, for hon. Members understand that there has been a change of jerseys in the Department since the decision that he has been discussing with the House was first taken. Surely the hon. Gentleman will want to give the assurance that there is a new mood in the Government to settle the miners' dispute, and that the Government will not want to defer that settlement in order to justify a decision that is now discredited in the eyes of the whole country, namely, that the whole country should go on a three-day week.

I reject immediately the suggestion that the need for going on a three-day week is discredited. Newspaper support for this move is universal. Regarding the second part of the question, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would want to do nothing that would do other than assist—as I think he is trying to—the discussions that will take place at Downing Street later today.

asked the Minister for Energy if he has completed his review of licensing policy for the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on Government policy on participation by foreign countries in the exploitation of North Sea oil.

We are reviewing all aspects of licensing policy. A report will be made to Parliament when the review is complete.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in view of the autocratic promotion of his right hon. Friend in another place, this House needs a White Paper dealing with all aspects of licensing policy, and in particular the relationship which the Department has with the oil companies and the contractors with a view to producing designs for equipment which are United-Kingdom based, avoiding the fiasco of the Drumbuie inquiry?

I said in my original answer that when a decision has been reached it will be reported to Parliament. We shall naturally consider whether a White Paper will be the most helpful way.

Can my right hon. Friend say anything about discussions with the Japanese concerning the exploitation of North Sea resources? Many people, whilst understanding the need for the most rapid exploitation of those resources in the interests of the consumer in this country, are none the less a little concerned that the Japanese may get their foot in the door and take what should rightly be ours.

When I met Mr. Nakasoni when he was in this country, he expressed to me the desire of the Japanese to play their part in the exploitation of the North Sea. I asked him what advantages he felt there might be for this country in their so doing—whether they could bring in additional technology or speed up supplies in any way. Those are matters which, no doubt, the Japanese Government will be considering. However, I made it abundantly clear—and Mr. Nakasoni accepted this—that there was no question but that the oil here is British and that we would require it to come to this country.

Is it not absolutely ludicrous that the Minister for Industrial Development should go to Japan and invite the Japanese to get involved on the supply and equipment side, specifically inviting them to get involved with the construction of oil rigs, when the one oil rig company in this country—Marathon, at Clydebank—is not even able to get exemption from the three-day working week?

I have seen reports of what my right hon. Friend has said in Tokyo and I have reported to the House on the discussions I had with Mr. Nakasoni, the Minister for Industry and Trade, when he was here.

Will the Minister consider one aspect of the foreign participation in oil exploration? Why should British vessels not be allowed to serve British rigs off the coast of America when American vessels are allowed to serve all rigs off the coast of Britain?

That is a matter which we have under discussion with the American Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of North Sea oil will have to be exported, and that those who buy it will have to pay the world prices? It might be a good idea if he considered the possibility of a posted price for North Sea oil.

The question of pricing North Sea oil is one of the major matters which my Department has to consider, but, of course, it will be some time before the oil is flowing ashore in substantial quantities. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. North Sea oil is by quality a premium oil, and it is likely that the return to this country will be higher if it is exchanged for oil of a lower quality which we can use and the North Sea oil is sold at the highest possible price overseas.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's view that the rise in oil prices has so completely outdated the basis upon which the licences have been issued that the whole position—concerning not just the future but the four rounds of licensing in the past—must be reconsidered? Will he also say when the Government, at long last, will make the statement that he promised?

On the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am sure that he would wish the new Ministers to give proper consideration to what is perhaps one of the most important single aspects of the North Sea before making a statement.

asked the Minister for Energy whether he will issue a general direction to the British Gas Corporation that in the interests of public safety external plastic gas pipes should include a strip of detectable metal.

No, Sir. On present information this is not technically practicable.

Is the Minister aware that it is absolutely essential that those digging trenches should be able to detect the presence of gas mains, which is most easily done by incorporating a metal strip or pipe? It would be most unfortunate were a severe explosion to occur because a plough was put through a plastic tube.

I accept that full and proper safety precautions should be taken by all people digging in an area where there are gas pipes and gas mains, but the introduction of a metallic strip in a plastic pipe as part of the extrusion process would inevitably reduce the mechanical strength of the pipe and introduce the risk of a running split if damage occurred.

Does the Minister not accept that since the introduction of the use of plastic piping the public utilities have made a careful record of all newly-laid plastic pipes? It would be nonsense for any public utility to dig willy-nilly without checking with the authority to find where the plastic pipes are laid.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is absurd for anybody excavating in an area of pipes not to consult the necessary authorities to ascertain where pipes are laid.

asked the Minister for Energy when he expects to receive the report of the nuclear installations inspector concerning the radiation accident at Windscale in the autumn of 1973; whether the report will be published in full; and if he will make a statement.

The Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations is currently considering a report on this incident, which he expects to submit to me before mid-February. When I have received this report I will consider whether it should be published and whether a statement would be appropriate.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he not aware that for the public good in my constituency the report on this incident should be published in full? Is he not further aware that the incident has given rise to a serious on-going labour dispute on the site and it is most important that the trade unions should be in full possession of the facts so that they may fully represent their members in the negotiations?

I should want to consider the question of publication. It is not entirely straightforward, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise. For instance, in the report there would be details of the inquiries and of the dosages of radiation received by individuals. It is questionable whether that information should be made the subject of a public report. Some of the information in the report is of a commercial nature to British Nuclear Fuels Limited and there, too, there could be damage to the public interest if the report were published. I undertake to consider the matter carefully. I realise the interest of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is a matter for thanks that no member of the public was injured in the accident, although a number of employees at Windscale were.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will pay close attention to the statement by the nuclear inspector, published in today's Select Committee's report, that it would take him at least two years to decide the safety of the PWR reactor in British conditions?

That concerns a fuel treatment plant and not a reactor, but, naturally, the Government would be closely concerned with the views of the chief nuclear inspector, whose evidence I read over the weekend.

asked the Minister for Energy whether he will seek to provide Government assistance for the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia with a view to making use of its services within the Government's energy resources programme.

There are no present plans for providing direct financial assistance to the Climatic Research Unit. The Natural Environment Research Council provides finance for fundamental research in the atmospheric sciences, while the funding of basic services for university research is the concern of the university and the University Grants Committee.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the unit has already done a lot of useful work, that at the moment its funds are being provided from private sources which are nearly exhausted, and that it could make a great contribution to the Government's energy resources programme?

Yes, Sir. My officials are already in contact with Professor Lamb at the University of East Anglia, and we have invited him to discussions with the Department.

How do these officials arrive at any meaningful decision in the absence of any kind of chief scientist's organisation?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The chief scientist's organisation existed within the Department of Trade and Industry and is still being used by many of the people who have been carrying on this work with the DTI. My hon. Friend has made quite clear that we are considering the position of a separate organisation for the Department of Energy as a matter of urgency.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most futile efforts to discredit the Government's imposition of the three-day week is the lunatic suggestion by certain Members, including the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), that the Government should have based their forecasts and plans on the long-range weather forecasts? Will he confirm and reassure the country that the Government do no such thing, but found their forecasts on much sounder bases?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister for Energy whether, since Magnox nuclear reactors are now accepted as safe, he will reconsider the present policy of not siting nuclear power stations close to centres of population, with a view to utilising disused dock areas in cities such as Liverpool as sites for such power stations.

No change in Government siting policy for this type of nuclear power station is contemplated.

Safety, of course, must be paramount at all times, but if the two-thirds of the heat produced by these generators which is at present wasted could be utilised in district heating systems, and since the Magnox reactor is now accepted as safe, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth looking at the policy again because the economics of nuclear generation of power would be transformed if these generators could be sited near centres of population, where their waste products could be utilised?

Clearly, the change in the costs of energy will have altered the balance of costs in using part of the reactors' output for district heating. I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that safety must be paramount. That remains the Government's view.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make available to the House an outline of the criteria that govern the siting of nuclear power stations? Is he aware that those criteria were relaxed in 1967, I think, but no public statement has ever been made?

It is with diffidence that I differ from the hon. Gentleman, because the then Minister of Power, on 6th February 1968, made a statement in the House on this subject. I shall consider whether anything more needs to be published.

Is it not true that experts in the Central Electricity Generating Board think that it is now quite safe for nuclear producers of electricity to be situated in urban communities?

This must be a matter on which the Government are advised by the nuclear inspectorate. While the advice of the Central Electricity Generating Board is clearly relevant, the advice of the nuclear inspectorate, under Acts passed by this House, must be paramount.

Is not the advice of the nuclear inspectorate precisely the same as the advice being proffered by the CEGB on this matter?

It is not customary for the advice given to Ministers by their civil servants on that matter to be made public in the House.