asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in nuclear generating capacity since 1975.

Since 1975 the CEGB has commissioned the AGR station at Hinkley Point at an interim capacity of 800 megawatts. Power stations in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

By how much does my hon. Friend expect our nuclear capacity to increase over the next five years and how will that increase compare with progress in other EEC countries?

I cannot give a precise figure for the next five years. For the moment, our nuclear capacity provides almost 13 per cent. of electricity supplied. When the AGRs at present under construction come on stream that proportion will, I think, increase to almost 20 per cent. By the year 2000 when the Government's programme of a station per year from 1982 onwards has been completed, the proportion of electricity supplied might be nearer 30 per cent.

In comparison with other countries, on the evidence of present trends, a much smaller proportion of our electricity will be supplied by nuclear power in the year 2000 than is the case in other countries. France and Japan will have a higher proportion in the year 1985 than we shall have in the year 2000.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether those figures represent available capacity or rated capacity? It is important that the House gets it right.

The figures that I quoted were for electricity supplied.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what date he has fixed for the announcement of allocations for the seventh round of offshore oil licences.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the arrangements for the seventh round of licences for the exploitation of North Sea oil.

My right hon. Friend will be announcing the full arrangements for the round and the blocks to be offered for licensing very soon.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and express the hope that the announcement will be made soon? Will my hon. Friend say specifically how he expects the arangements for BNOC will be constructed on this occasion compared with participation agreements in the previous round?

Negotiations are taking place on the BNOC arrangements. We have received representations from the oil industry and from those outwith the industry as to how the arangements might best be achieved. My hon. Friend would not, I think, expect me to anticipate the announcement to be made by my right hon. Friend in due course.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in making the announcement on the seventh round means that the companies will miss the weather window in 1980? Furthermore, is my hon. Friend aware that the constant changes in PRT combined with the uncertainty about the role of BNOC will have a seriously adverse effect on future drilling activity?

My hon. Friend is taking an unduly pessimistic view. There has been no undue delay. These are important matters and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, for the sake of a few weeks, it is essential that they are properly resolved and that we reach the right conclusions.

Does the Minister agree that there is considerable disquiet in the industry, which believes that there ought to be more than 70 blocks announced in the seventh round? What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the rig market, particularly in view of the loss of the "Alexander Keilland"?

It is correct that the industry would have preferred a larger round and we are, of course, taking due note of all representations. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, dealing with the rig market all available exploration and appraisal rigs are at present in use. It is not expected that drilling in connection with the seventh round will take place before 1981. The drilling taking place at the moment is on old acreage. That has been made much more attractive, not only by price rises but by the relevant Government policies.

Before the Minister allocates the seventh round of offshore licences, will he undertake to make regulations on the debris from these rigs that floats about the North Sea and to have consultations with the fishing industry to ensure that the damage that is done to fishing vessels is eliminated or, alternatively, is properly compensated for? Is he aware that at the moment regulations do not exist and the oil operators are getting away with pure murder?

I know of the concern that my hon. Friend always shows about this matter, with his constituency interest. I assure him that the Government are having close consultations with the fishing industry and, indeed, with others outside the oil industry.

We quite understand that my hon. Friend cannot give us the full details of BNOC's role after the seventh round, but will he at least give us a guarantee that the automatic right of BNOC to sit on all the operating committees will no longer apply?

Consultations are taking place regarding the BNOC and the joint operating committees. The proposals at present being considered are that BNOC should have limited rights and that those rights should be put into effect only when the uplifting of oil or directly related issues are concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he intends to meet the EEC Energy Ministers.

I expect to meet other EEC Energy Ministers at the Energy Council meeting planned for early May. The exact date has yet to be arranged.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to imagine a European common energy policy, whether based on a levy on imported energy or on anything else, which would not constitute an even greater absurdity than the common agricultural policy?

The Government's view is that the main thrust of energy policy must come from national energy policies. At the same time, there may be certain areas, such as setting oil import targets for the Community as a whole, where international collaboration is called for and where an EEC attitude may be appropriate. However, the main thrust of energy policy remains with national Governments.

Will the Minister ensure that his right hon. Friend discusses very thoroughly at the next meeting of Energy Ministers the appalling problems of the coal mining industry in the rest of the Community? Will he also ensure that Britain supports arrangements and policies which will assist its industry and equitably bring about the necessary support which our own industry should receive?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have put forward a series of proposals emphasising the importance of coal in supplying the Community's energy needs. Of course, we have drawn attention to the great part that the United Kingdom's coal industry can play in supplying the Community's needs. Those proposals are before the Commission and we are awaiting an answer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a world in which there will be increasing competition for energy, a sensible energy policy for this country cannot be worked out—even if most of it comes from our own resources and decisions—except within the context of a European common energy policy?

I agree with that, but my hon. Friend must also recognise that the resources of the different countries vary considerably. National policies diverge considerably and consumption patterns vary from country to country. Therefore, it is not easy to agree a common production policy.

Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be no trade-off of our energy policy and our own energy interests at the Summit meeting in return for any reduction in our net contribution to the EEC?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to our contribution to the budget, that question stands on its own, unrelated to energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has had from industry on the price and availability of gas.

Over the past six months my Department has received 60 representations from industry about the price of gas and a further 60 about availability.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the event of a normal cold winter and no steel strike, gas supplies to industry would be in jeopardy? Will he therefore consider whether, in the Gas Bill now before the House, we should consider the removal of the statutory obligation to provide gas on demand to domestic as well as to industrial consumers?

I note what my hon. Friend said. I think that would be a matter of considerable controversy. The obligation to supply gas is of long standing. However, I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said.

If and whenever the so-called enterprise zones get off the ground, will the Department of Energy ensure that firms moving into the enterprise zones will he able to obtain a supply of gas?

We shall do our best to co-operate in the setting up of enterprise zones. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the supply of gas to any firm is a matter for the British Gas Corporation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, while we continue to market gas to the domestic consumer below the European and world price, there must continue to be distortions in the market place or shortages?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he now proposes to take to encourage oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.

The Government propose to continue with their present policies which already show signs of stimulating an improvement in the level of exploration.

Does the Secretary of State believe that advancing petroleum revenue tax by 25 per cent. in one year is an incentive? Does he also believe that reserving to BNOC an option to take 51 per cent. of the available oil and gas is an incentive? Does he further believe that giving small operators no special incentive to operate in the North Sea will be in their interests?

None of these points has got in the way of the increased incentive momentum that we are now seeing in exploration. I am confident that, when the announcement on the seventh round is made, that will provide further momentum and that we shall see a considerable stepping-up in exploration and development in our North Sea programme. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but I do not believe that any of these matters have acted as substantial disincentives in achieving the momentum and the increased expansion in our North Sea programme which we all want to see.

Does the Minister agree that we have done sufficient exploration now to indicate that there is ample oil coming from the North Sea to stop us worrying unduly about the Middle East? Does he agree that groveling apologies by the Foreign Secretary to Saudi Arabia are no longer necessary because we have so much oil now coming from the North Sea?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up a number of questions. First, exploration now means oil in eight, nine or 10 years, because that is the length of time that it takes to develop an exploration well. Therefore, we have to think ahead about oil supplies.

As for oil availability now, I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the quality of the oil that we produce, the match with our refineries and the need to enter into world trade in oil, involve us both in exporting and importing oil. Therefore, it is in our interests to see a stable world oil market, stable prices and stable trade on the basis of good relations between other countires.

In considering future action to deal with production in the North Sea—and as there is no question on the Order Paper about this matter—can my right hon. Friend say anything further about the safety requirements and problems of semi-submersibles following his statement in the House just before the Easter Recess?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is nothing on the Order Paper about this matter. I undertook to him and to others to keep the House informed. I am today answering a written question on progress so far in relation to the inquiry being held by the Norwegian authorities into the "Alexander Keilland" disaster. From that he will learn that, although the inquiry is entirely in Norwegian hands, we are being kept closely informed. Obviously, at each stage that we learn about information relevant to the accident, we shall immediately apply it to our inspection surveys of our semi-submersibles.

In the light of the Secretary of State's reply, will he now give the House some indication when we may expect a debate on the Burgoyne report? If the Norwegian commission is likely to take some time, will he take it that we should not consider it reasonable to withhold a debate from the House? We should have the debate before the com- mission reports, if it is a matter of some months away.

This is a bit off the question, but I note the right hon. Gentleman's views. The timing of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am sure that he will note—indeed, I shall call his attention to it—what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the capital investment programme of the coal industry.

The board's capital expenditure on fixed assets was £636 million last financial year, and is expected to be some £800 million this financial year. Figures for later years are in the latest public expenditure White Paper.

Does not the Minister accept that some projects, for example, the Park colliery in Staffordshire, are vital if we are to retain mining skills in areas such as Cannock Chase? Will he use his considerable influence with the Department of the Environment—now that the Belvoir inquiry is nearing conclusion—to ensure that the inquiry concerning this colliery goes forward forthwith?

As I said on 11 February. I understand the reasonable constituency interests of the hon. Gentleman. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of the Environment. However, in the last analysis, the timing of the inquiry is a decision for the Department of the Environment.

Will the Minister take into account that, in addition to developing the new coalfields at Selby and Belvoir, many existing pits require a large amount of money for modernisation? Will he ensure that sufficient investment funds are available for that sort of colliery? Further, will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that, when we produce the coal, we sell it? To that end will he refuse to allow coal imports?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is matter of note to the House that an enormous amount of money is being spent on both old and new pits. An amount in excess of £600 million is a large annual commitment in capital investment.

I think that the whole House would join me in commending the industry's recent success. It would be appropriate for me to draw attention to the outstanding safety record last year, which showed the lowest death rate in the history of the coal industry. That, together with the increase in productivity, is to be commended.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what study he has made of the recommendation in the Brandt commission report for an international energy strategy.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade made clear during the debate on the Brandt commission report on 28th March, the Government are studying the report, including the recommendations for an international energy strategy, with great care.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he tell the House when he expects to reach conclusions on those recommendations that have a bearing on his Department? Does he support the idea of a global energy research centre run under the auspices of the United Nations? Is he in a position to say what progress he is making with his energy conservation policies?

The report took two years to put together. There has been a preliminary debate. It will take some time to reach conclusions on the variety of suggestions contained in the report. In some areas the report is couched in a degree of generality. Following its completion, there have been many developments in world oil markets, and arrangements are moving on.

I welcome the stress that the report places on the need to reduce dependence on oil—which is the other side of the coin of alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear—and on increased conservation. I welcome its emphasis on the need for fuller international discussion of energy matters, although much is happen- ing in that area. We are trying to develop bilateral and multilateral talks with those OPEC countries that can act together in a way which will enable us to carry forward constructive discussions. All these matters are being examined. At the same time developments are taking place in parallel with our examination of the Brandt report.

Would it be unfair to suggest that on 28 March the comparatively junior Minister who answered the debate on Brandt gave the impression that the Government wished to put the report into a pigeon hole and forget about many of its recommendations? Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is an unfair suggestion.

Are we discussing the global energy research centre with our European colleagues? After all, there is a foundation of experience at TSPA and elsewhere.

I think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was unfair. The global research centre is one of a number of suggestions included in the report and which needs further consideration. Things are moving so fast on the world oil scene, and the impact on the developing countries of changing oil prices is so rapid, that we cannot afford to wait for the full unfolding of global conferences and massive committees. We must move ahead as quickly as possible with some practical tasks in concert with a number of other countries, including oil-producing countries. That does not mean that we cannot learn from the Brandt report, and draw from its constructive parts. However, we cannot wait and ignore the fact that the world oil and economic scenes are changing at a rapid pace and require rapid response.

Does the Minister agree that a practical action for the Government would be to put far greater resources into renewable sources of energy, such as wave and solar power, which avoid many of the difficulties posed by oil and nuclear power?

Many resources in terms of brain power and research are being put into renewable sources of energy. However, neither of those technologies has reached the stage of requiring massive development funds that other technologies are now ready to receive. If and when the economics of these possibilities emerge, and when the calculations show that heavy investment is desirable, the enterprise sector—with the necessary support of Government—will push them forward. To push forward major expenditure, whether in the private or public sectors, before these technologies become economic, would waste and divert funds that should be channelled into more effective means of alternative energy development.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy on what date he plans to make his proposed statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

I am continuing consultations, and hope to make a statement in due course.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us would prefer an inquiry, a move away from centralisation—which has been proposed—and provision for independent generation of electricity? Will he take a favourable view of those suggestions?

I note my hon. Friend's view on the matter. The central recommendations of the Plowden committee were on the table when the Government came into office. Consideration of the recommendations has formed part of our overall consideration of how we should proceed on electricity reorganisation. We have also considered possible restructuring of the generating boards. I ask my hon. Friend to await my statement on the conclusions that we have reached.

Will the Minister give an assurance that when he is ready to make his statement—which has been longawaited—on the reorganisation of this important basic industry, he will make it from the Dispatch Box and will not use the evasive device of an inspired parliamentary question?

The statement will be made in the appropriate form.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what the industry needs to serve the consumer more efficiently is not more centralisation but far greater regional autonomy?

The sentiment reflected in my hon. Friend's question is the right one. Over the years, we have learnt that there are dangers in excessive centralisation. This is not an aid to centralisation. People are seeking organisations on a more manageable and human scale. That thought should be reflected in all major considerations of reorganisation of all major public and national bodies.

Is the Minister aware that his statement will cause a great deal of disappointment within the electricity industry itself because of the inordinate delay—I appreciate that it is not the Minister's fault—in implementing the Plowden committee report, or some alternative policy? Is he aware that the industry is becoming demoralised? Will he make an announcement as quickly as possible?

I am not sure that matters are as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He was kind enough to say that it was not my fault. Indeed, the question of reorganisation of electricity has been on the table for the past 10 years. It was continuously discussed under successive Governments, reached the point of near decision in the fourth year of any parliament, and then was put off as being too late.

The industry has a perfect right to demand that the uncertainty be ended. I undertook that decisions would be reached around Easter, and that I would make a statement some time after Easter on our conclusions, after appropriate consultations and discussions. That is the process in which I am engaged. I am moving towards a stage where I can make a statement, and I shall certainly do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete his consideration of the advice which he has received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and others on the development of the commercial fast-breeder reactor.

As I told my hon. Friend in my written answer of 10 March, a statement on fast reactor policy will be made in due course.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still widespread public misconception about the fast-breeder reactor? Will he ensure that greater efforts are made to explain to the public that the fast breeder reactor does not breed fast and that, far from increasing stocks of plutonium, it will help to reduce stocks.

My hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the advantages of the fast reactor. It would use the plutonium that is enevitably generated in a country with a thermal programme. Another advantage is that the fast reactor could help to overcome whatever constraints may arise on uranium supplies. The Government are considering those issues carefully. We must consider whether a commercial demonstration fast reactor should be built, and whether there should be international collaboration.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since it will he necessary to use coal more and more for oil-related and chemical purposes in the next few decades, the fast reactor may, ultimately, have a role to play?

As we are dealing with a 15 to 20 year time scale, is it not time to open the debate on the matter?

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. That is one of the reasons why the Government have placed an emphasis on nuclear power, as a replacement for coal. It will play an increasing role in meeting industrial needs and as a chemical feedstock.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is proposing to take on the Government's nuclear power programme prior to the receipt of the report of the Central Policy Review Staff on the nuclear power stations at Heysham and Torness.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is now taking to make possible the announced expansion of the nuclear power programme, in view of the difficult financial position of the Central Electricity Generat- ing Board and the cash limits imposed by Government policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been achieved in the implementation of the programme of nuclear power construction since his statement of December 1979.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is still committed to the building of the advanced gas-cooled reactors he announced in his statement of 18 December 1979.

As the House knows, the Government have reviewed the proposal to construct new advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations at Heysham and Torness. The generating boards made clear their wish to proceed with the stations, and the Government have decided that this would be right.

The cost of these stations was fully reflected in the public expenditure White Paper—Cmnd. 7841. But in view of the heavy costs of these and other capital projects the Government have urged the CEGB, the SSEB and the other boards to identify economies wherever possible.

Work is in hand on all the measures announced in my statement of 18 December, which provides a framework for the development of the nuclear programme.

Since it has taken 16 years to produce 1½ gigawatts of generating capacity in the present AGR programme, is it not ridiculous to suppose that the Government's new programme is in any way practicable? In the light of the fall in demand for electricity, will not the Government be lumbering the country not simply with one white elephant, but with a whole herd of white elephants?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is generally recognised that while we are not planning a crash programme—a massive programme of nuclear generation capacity increase—we are proposing a steady programme over the coming years which will build up our electricity generation from nuclear sources to a reasonable percentage. Even then, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in reply to an earlier question, the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power which Britain will have by the year 2000 on the plans which I announced before Christmas, will be less than that which will be available to the French and the Germans in 1985. Since nuclear-generated electricity, on all present experience costs less, the consumer will be the loser if we do not build nuclear.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in practical terms there is a clash between the expansion of the nuclear power programme and the cash limits that the Government are imposing on the electricity supply industry? Is it not a fact that the Cabinet hoped to get out of the dilemma by getting the Central Policy Review Staff to make a decision in favour of postponement until the pressurised water reactor was ready? Will the Secretary of State deny those rumours, if they are rumours?

They are rumours. There is no conflict between the cash limit restraints on the electricity industry and the decision to go ahead with the building of these stations. As I have already said, the Government decided that that would be right, and the cost of those stations is fully reflected in the public expenditure White Paper. It makes sense to go ahead with building nuclear power stations and the available technology at present is the advanced gas-cooled reactor. I have explained to the House that it is the Government's objective that we move towards seeking to build a pressurised water reactor in due course. In the meantime we have the opportunity to build nuclear; that is what the boards are to do and they will keep within their cash limits in doing so.

Taking into account the huge escalation in costs and the delayed time scale, as well as the unsatisfactory performance of the existing AGR programme, how will the Government monitor the new construction programmes so that they keep within even the unacceptably high costs, and the proposed time scale of six years per station?

It has been widely recognised that there is a need to strengthen the nuclear construction capacity. For that reason I announced before Christmas the Government's plans to reorganise the NNC, and to strengthen it to meet the demands which will fall upon it from building nuclear power stations in the coming years. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the performance has not been good in the past. It is essential that the industry is reorganised, that confidence is given by a steady programme, and that the different roles of the customer and the supplier are clearly defined. Within that broad set of arrangements we can go forward with more economic and efficient building, with tighter control on costs.

Will the Secretary of State concede that doubt and indecision at Government level in general, and within the Department of Energy in particular, have bedevilled the nuclear industry over the years? Does his announcement mean that the industry can now get on with the job without any further interference from the Prime Minister?

My announcement today confirms what the Government also made clear before Chirstmas. We are setitng out a basic programme around which the industry can organise with confidence. No one in the industry expects any such programmes, stretching ahead over many years, to be completely free from uncertainties and questions as time goes on. The pace must be influenced by resource availability and demand. The fundamental point is that we now have the basic programme to give the industry confidence.

Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to visit Dungeness B? Will he further explain that the long building programme was due to the experimental work that was carried out? Is he aware that there is an extremely good team working at Dungeness B, whose experience should be used for future stations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. Despite the unwelcome delays, there is a prospect that these stations will produce electricity highly competitively and economically. That is an indication of the strong economic benefit from nuclear electricity—which is cheaper. Even where there are considerable delays and difficulties, the cheaper quality of that electricity is maintained.

How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the nuclear industry and the power plant industry to work when an order is placed one month, and before the month is out the "Think Tank" reviews it, the Prime Minister protests about it, the Treasury argues about it, and his right hon. Friends leak stories to the press about it? How can any industry be organised—Conservative Members are supposed to know about such matters—on that basis? Further, how can the industry operate on the basis of steady ordering when everyone knows that an order scheduled for completion in 1982 will not be completed before 1984–85?

The Labour Party and the previous Labour Government know all about uncertainty and change of direction on nuclear power and nuclear ordering. If the hon. Gentleman had a little grace and courtesy he would recognise that there has been a great improvement and that we now have the basis for a steady ordering programme, and for the revival of the British nuclear industry. He should congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that, and he should think back to the poorer performance of his party.

Surely the Secretary of State is aware that the existing AGRs are difficult to complete, and are extremely expensive. Would it not be wiser to cut the Gordian knot and go straight to the PWR now, which is much cheaper than the AGR?

As my hon. Friend will know, Hinkley B compares favourably with fossil fuel stations, taking all the factors into account. My hon. Friend talks of cutting Gordian knots. The reality is that we have the capacity, technology and opportunity to build AGR stations. I have stated the objective that we should seek to build a PWR, but safety considerations are paramount and there must first be a full and thorough inquiry, which takes time. In the meantime, the CEGB and SSEB should continue building nuclear so that we are not left so far behind our continental competitors in cheap nuclear electricity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I welcome his decision, without which the industry would not have the steady ordering programme that is vital if it is to be viable throughout the next decade and beyond? Has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided on the choice for the important appointment of chairman, over which the delay has been too long?

Any power programme must reflect demand. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea about future energy demand, particularly for electricity? Is a fall in demand anticipated, which would result in the building programme being cut back? For example, does the right hon. Gentleman still hold to the belief that he can sustain a building programme of one nuclear station a year, as announced in December?

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for what I have said. I intend to make a statement about the chairmanship and the new chairman of the NNC shortly. Recent electricity supply industry estimates of demand have been revised downwards to a growth rate of just under 1 per cent. My announcement of nuclear power building before Christmas was based on at least the possibility of an overall energy demand growth of 1 per cent. and an electricity demand growth of less than 1 per cent. On demand grounds alone my announcement before Christmas is still valid. In addition, there is an economic case for building nuclear power stations. The increasing evidence is that electricity from nuclear power is considerably cheaper than from oil—or coal-fired stations, even on present prices, let alone with possible price trends in a dangerous world. Reading the newspapers one is daily aware of the growing threats to oil and gas supplies. There is an urgent need for us to diversify our energy resources, and it makes sense to build nuclear.

Order. Questions are becoming lengthy and answers longer still.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he expects to meet the chairman of the Electricity Council.

I meet the chairman from time to time.

When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he try to put an end to the scandal of tenants having their electricity supplies cut off when they have paid the appropriate amount to their landlord, in whose name the account stands, but the landlord defaults in paying over what is necessary to clear the account?

I shall discuss that matter when I next meet the chairman. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the code of practice is also being studied by the PSI, and I have emphasised that we wish to have that matter completed as quickly as possible. Such issues are of great importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a fuller statement on the gas-gathering system for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea.

The British Gas Corporation and Mobil North Sea Limited have now sent my right hon. Friend a copy of the report submitted by the study team. My right hon. Friend will make a fuller statement when the report has been considered.

Will the Minister accept that that reply is again disappointing? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in answer to a previous question the Secretary of State indicated that this was an area where we could, within our own resouces, make significant advnces? Is he delaying the statement so that there can be a depletion policy statement at the same time?

There is no question of delaying a statement. This is an important matter, which involves highly technical engineering skills. It would be wrong for the Government to come forward with any decisions without giving the matter the fullest consideration.

What conversations has my hon. Friend had with his opposite numbers in Norway? The IPU conference in Norway has just taken place. Will my hon. Friend accept that exploration in the next few years will occur north of the 62nd parallel? What likelihood is there of a line directly to Emden, cutting out the North Sea?

The Norwegian Government were given the opportunity to participate in the survey that has just been completed. We regret that they did not take that opportunity. We are still prepared to discuss these matters with the Norwegian Government. If they indicate that they would like to be a partner in any future line, their proposals will be carefully considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the policy of British Gas in respect of conditions relating to the supplying of gas to new industrial units.

The British Gas Corporation is facing considerable difficulties because of the unprecedented demand for gas. I am satisfied that its longer-term plans should improve the situation.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply, but will he keep the matter under review? Most reasonable people would say that the conditions laid down by British Gas are far too inhibiting and ought to be re-examined, and a greater priority given. Does my hon. Friend agree?

We discuss these matters with individual firms and with trade associations representing industries which are particularly adversely affected. My hon. Friend has to recognise that, because of the increase in oil prices of 100 per cent. in 12 months, the demand for gas has absolutely run away. There are more people wanting to have gas than there is gas available, and it is extremely difficult to bring the two together. That is why we have had to make unpopular decisions on pricing. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must keep this under review, especially in regard to the industrial consequences.