asked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 8 February, Official Report, c. 731, to what extent the standing charges of the electricity and gas supply industries take account of the length of time the supply has been installed.

Domestic standing charges do not reflect the length of time that a supply has been connected. They are set by the supply industries and reflect their fixed costs such as meter reading, billing, maintaining the connection and, in the case of gas, provision to deal with emergencies.

Would it not ease the financial burden on pensioners, who, in general terms, will have contributed more than their fair share of overhead costs over the years, and at the same time create equity between the long-established user and users with a new connection if the standing charge were to take some account of the length of time the supply had been installed?

As my hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and I are currently reviewing standing charges. We shall bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Does the Minister agree that the matter is urgent? Pensioners' tears have not yet dried and the bills are still racing in. Pensioners still face financial difficulties. I hope that the Government will approach the matter with urgency, as it would help to alleviate pensioners' problems.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pensions have been fully indexed during the lifetime of the Government. He will also know that 1½2million pensioners are receiving the additional sums paid by the Department of Health and Social Security. In case the hon. Gentleman suggests that this is an easy matter, he will recall that when he was at the Department of Energy a document called "Energy Tariffs and the Poor" was published. It recognised the difficulty of changing existing tariff structures and that there was no easy route to assist poor consumers through changes in tariff structures.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the standing charges paid by retirement pensioners for their gas and electricity supplies.

Together with my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, I am reviewing the problems faced by the elderly and other low-income consumers in paying standing charges. We hope to reach a conclusion fairly soon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners feel deeply that their standing charges are often much larger than their consumption costs? They do not resent having to pay for what they use, but they resent the standing charges. Will my hon. Friend therefore have a meeting with the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss the matter?

I have already asked the deputy chairmen of the Electricity Council and the British Gas Corporation to meet me to discuss the issue.

Is the Minister aware that standing charges often represent a substantial proportion of bills and that there is great anger and concern among pensioners that standing charges have been constantly increasing? Does he accept that that is felt in Scotland particularly because of the severe climatic conditions?

The standing charges reflect the cost to the industry of maintaining the supply. If the standing charges were abolished the gas and electricity industries would lose about £500 million in revenue each. That would mean a material increase in tariffs. While we are looking carefully at ways of assisting consumers, it is questionable whether that route would be the best.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous difficulties that fuel costs have presented to retired people and those on limited incomes? Is he aware that the removal of standing charges would at least relieve some of the agony that so many of our fellow elderly citizens have to face every winter?

That matter was considered when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State. He said in his foreword to the energy document:

"After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills."

Will my hon. Friend consider whether consumers could be given a choice between a standing charge and a low unit cost, as at present, or no standing charge and a higher unit cost?

That was the position with gas prices under the previous Government. There was a higher unit charge for the first 52 therms. The arrangement did not meet with the approval of the Price Commission, and it has been changed under this Government.

Will the Minister confirm that gas prices have increased by 100 per cent. because of the Government's actions and that the standing charge has increased by 300 per cent.? As there has been a decision to increase the charge, why can there not be a decision to change it in other ways?

Removing the differential charge for the first 52 therms of gas meant that when the Labour Government left office the standing charge was £6·37 a quarter, so the effect is not markedly different.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 8 February, Official Report, c. 250, how much oil was exported to Israel in the most recent period for which figures are available.

None, Sir.

Will the Minister reconsider the unhappy policy of discrimination that has led to that sad answer? In the interests of free trade, should we not now sell our oil to a democratic customer anxious to buy it?

The policy is not aimed against any country but is in favour of European Community and International Energy Agency countries, with whom we have a special energy relationship. We should ask licencees to recognise those relationships. There are many other friendly countries to whom we do not export oil because they are not members of those alliances.

As the Israeli war machine is the greatest threat to Middle East stability, would it not be a little absurd for Her Majesty's Government to provide it with fuel with which it could threaten world peace?

My hon. Friend's point hardly relates directly to the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many barrels of oil produced daily from the oilfields in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf the British National Oil Corporation handles as a trader.

In 1981 it was 1,037,000 barrels per day.

As that is such a profoundly overwhelming proportion of the total, does it not suggest that BNOC should remain an integrated trading, exploration and production company?

I fail to see the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The figure points to the strength that BNOC, after the flotation of Britoil, will have in the world's oil markets.

Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the drop in world oil prices will affect the trading arm of BNOC, as it will the Government directly? Is it not time for the Government to act in concert with OPEC to cut production to maintain the price level and to save in Scotland jobs that will be lost if North Sea development does not take place?

The fall in oil prices will have a much more positive effect on jobs in the Western world, including the United Kingdom and Scotland, than the policy that the hon. Gentleman would like us to pursue.

Does the question asked by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) not demonstrate the fact that the SDP has great difficulty in making up its mind whether it is for or against nationalisation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SDP has great difficulty in deciding where it stands on everything and anything.

Is the Secretary of State aware that BNOC is facing its greatest crisis since it was created and that the fall in oil prices has created a major problem for the trading arm, which could lose large sums of money? Does he agree that now is not the time to smash up the corporation, as it would destroy the morale of the State trading arm personnel? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider postponing that part of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill for at least 12 months to give the corporation a chance to weather the storm?

No, Sir. I am confident that BNOC will remain fully capable of dealing with world economic developments and developments in the oil market as they occur.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy with what aspects of Her Majesty's Government's space policy his Department is currently concerned.

Clearly, I am concerned to ensure that my Department is aware of developments in space technology that are of interest to energy related issues.

With the growing increase of loading for commercial satellite projects in this country and the scientific satellite development through the European Space Agency, in which Britain plays a leading part, does my hon. Friend agree that the time is now overdue for us to take a wider look at those issues? Will he carefully consider the opportunities in the remote sensing programme and for solar energy through space developments.

Knowing my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge and experience, I shall maintain my Department's watching brief.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much diesel fuel was produced in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

My Department's estimate is 5·5 million tonnes in 1981.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the diesel engine industry is a strategic industry and that firms like Perkins in my constituency should not be exposed to unfair competition, from whatever source?

I noted a recent article that suggested that Perkins, along with British Leyland, was carrying out research on a motor car diesel engine. We wish such a venture every success.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what will now be the estimated level of energy prices, whether electricity, gas, oil or coal, for industry and the domestic consumer in the United Kingdom over the next 12 months; and if he will indicate from information available to him how these are expected to compare with those in other EEC countries.

Market prices for oil products depend on the balance of supply and demand in a highly competitive market. The price of gas to the home will remain much cheaper than both oil and electricity and among the cheapest in Europe. For most other energy consumers, the prospect is that prices will rise broadly in line with other costs in the economy. I would expect that prices to the vast majority of consumers will remain generally in line with those on the Continent.

First, will my right hon. Friend tell industry how gas and electricity prices in Britain will compare with those on the Continent over the next 12 months? Secondly, will he assure domestic consumers that they will have a price advantage, at least for gas, especially over France and Germany, for the next two or three years, as they do not appear to be aware of the fact?

My hon. Friend is right that British consumers are generally unaware of the fact that, despite the considerable increase in the price of domestic gas, it is still a great deal cheaper here than in France or Germany. It is perhaps understandable that they are not fully aware of that fact, but they are more keenly aware of the fact that gas is still a far cheaper fuel for them than is electricity or oil.

Are the Government looking ahead to the time when North Sea oil will be dear oil and considering how best to protect ourselves against the danger of having to buy our own dear oil?

If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, these matters are probably best left to the market.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Select Committee on Energy did a great deal of work on the question, it is a pity that it had such a disappointing and unhelpful reply from his Department?

I do not agree that the reply was unhelpful. I applaud the Select Committee for its work on that and other energy matters. I do not believe that the last word has yet been said by my Department.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the market has done a splendid job in destroying the cohesion of OPEC? As the cohesion of OPEC was a virtual disaster for the Western world for the best part of the last decade, will he now formally encourage that process?

I hope that my hon. Friend is not trying to lure or seduce me into saying something that might be considered undiplomatic, but I fully take the force of what he has said. I hope that he will therefore approve the positive way in which BNOC recently responded to market forces in reducing the price of North Sea oil by $4 per barrel.

As I understand it, the Minister has just confirmed the NEDC report's finding that comparative prices for heavy users of electricity work to the disadvantage of this country. Does his reply mean that he intends to do nothing about the NEDC report's recommendation?

First, it was not the NEDC report recommendation. The task force investigated all kinds of comparative industrial energy prices—oil, gas, electricity, and so on—both for small and large consumers. Although it found that in general there was no longer any disadvantage to speak of between industrial energy consumers in this country and on the Continent, it identified an area, particularly among electricity users, where there was a considerable disparity. I suggested that we hope very shortly indeed to be able to do something significant—I do not say that it will be all that the industry would wish—in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will seek to extend the requirement that the British Gas Corporation should supply gas to residential properties, which at present it is not obliged to supply.

No, Sir, but there is no statutory bar on the British Gas Corporation supplying premises outside the 25-yard limit. Moreover, the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will allow consumers outside that limit to seek, where available, alternative supplies.

Will the Minister encourage British Gas to go over the albeit non-statutory bar to which he referred? Is he aware that the present arrangements discriminate unjustly by creating two groups within our nation—those who receive gas and those who are most unlikely ever to receive gas from the British Gas Corporation? Is he aware that those arrangments operate unfairly against many of my constituents and also against those of the Secretary of State?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has reminded those who did know about it of the attraction of gas to so many people who cannot obtain it. I must remind him, however, that the British Gas Corporation has an obligation to seek economically to satisfy gas demand, as opposed to the specific duty to which I referred. Extension within that economic availability must be left to British Gas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Gas has abused its monopoly powers by refusing supplies to district heating and combined heat and power schemes, or by agreeing to supply them only at the industrial rather than the domestic tariff? Is he aware that that has worked greatly against consumer interests, as cheaper heat could have been provided through many schemes which as a result of British Gas policy have not gone ahead?

I am conscious of my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge of the subject of combined heat and power, and I am aware of the comments that have been made about past pricing policy in this regard. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will recognise the ways in which competition as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will enhance supply opportunities.

How can the Minister justify certain tentative proposals to export gas when some consumers in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, cannot be supplied?

Questions relating to Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I am aware of the point and shall bring it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents in Chorley and in North-West England generally will find his answer most unsatisfactory? On the other point, will he confirm that potential consumers can now look to subcontractors to make a link with existing gas mains?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's persistent activities on behalf of his constituents in this respect. I suggest that it might be proper to await the completion of proceedings on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, but certainly that Bill seeks to offer competitive alternative supply choices to consumers in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Does the Minister agree that as the buying rights of British Gas are an important part of conservation and depletion policy for North Sea gas, if those rights are destroyed depletion policy will also be destroyed? Does he agree that if the Bill is passed without safeguards British Gas may find itself with insufficient supplies of gas even to supply its own 15 million customers?

The Government are responsible for depletion policies for oil and gas, and our powers in that area are unchanged. It is hard to conceive that competition, as in all other area, will not increase rather than diminish opportunities for supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate a feasibility study for the purpose of introducing an income-related rebate scheme for domestic heating.

The Government are already spending some £250 million this year in assisting those in most need.

I acknowledge that the Government are spending that amount this year, but does the Minister agree that that excludes many low-income families who receive rebates because they cannot afford to pay economic rents or rates for the houses in which they live? Is it not logical for the Government now to consider extending those rebate schemes to include energy, which is quite as important as rents or rates in terms of essential payments?

That is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Nevertheless, the Government are currently helping 2·25 million people who are in receipt of supplementary benefit. Of course, there may be others who consider themselves to be in need, but it has proved remarkably difficult to find ways in which to assist them and the funds with which to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Labour Government's scheme gave people in receipt of rebates only a one-off payment averaging £7·50, which was scarcely more than a sop and illustrates the difficulties experienced by successive Governments in widening the assistance available.

In his talks with the Secretary of State for Social Services will my hon. Friend bear in mind that people who in their working days used to obtain their wages on Friday and be spent up by Monday are now finding it very difficult to pay their fuel bills? Could some form of assistance be given to provide meters for both electricity and gas in such cases?

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The Policy Studies Institute review currently being considered by the industries advocated an extension in the use of prepayment meters. I am happy to say that the number of such meters installed by both supply industries has materially increased in the past 12 months.

Mr. Tony Speller.

Question No. 11, Sir.

Order. It is question No. 10.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he expects to make on research into and development of alternative energy sources.

The answer is the same, Mr. Speaker, whatever the number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I have said more than I intended. I shall stick to my brief in future.

I apologise for my lack of numeracy and my misreading, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government genuinely believe in and support alternative forms of energy such as wind, wave and geothermal heat, which I believe can be advanced for the benefit of our community. Has he any information about progress in that direction?

The Government have a wide-ranging programme of research and development into a number of renewable sources—solar, wind, biomass, small scale hydro, tidal wave and geothermal projects. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the amount of money being spent this year—more than £13 million—is materially greater than in previous years.

Will the Minister be a little more specific in order to help his hon. Friend and the House? What specific requests has he received for more funding of alternative energy sources?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of requests are received and evaluated by the Department, with assistance from our energy technology support unit at Harwell, and with advice from our advisory committee on research and development, which will report next month on the present state of the "renewables" programme. I should tell him, however, that the Government are able to meet more of the demands placed on the renewables programme because, compared with the £2·8 million spent on research and development in the hon. Gentleman's last year at the Department, we are spending some £13·1 million this year, which is an increase materially greater than the rate of inflation.

May I urge my hon. Friend not to overlook the fact that the cheapest, safest and most readily available alternative energy source is energy conservation? What response does his Department propose to make to the recent good report of the advisory council on energy conservation, which said that with a few more incentives much more could be achieved on that front?

We take seriously the advisory council's views. The House knows that the council is being reconstituted to bring in some new blood to continue its good work. We are studying the report, which made some useful suggestions as well as a number of supportive observations about the Government's policies, particularly on the importance of economic pricing in relation to energy conservation.

Having examined the wave energy project at the Lanchester polytechnic in Coventry, can the Minister say whether his Department is prepared to support a larger project to take the scheme a step forward?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Lanchester and was much impressed by what I was shown and by the obvious signs of a highly effective partnership between the polytechnic and private industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I told those at Lanchester, the whole wave programme, which has been going on for six years and has cost about £12 million in public money, is being looked at by the advisory council on research and development. It would be premature for me to say more until I receive its report. However, I was impressed by what I saw and I shall consider the ACORD report with considerable sympathy towards what is being done on wave energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current price per therm to industrial users of oil, gas, electricity and coal; and how these will be affected by increases already announced.

Prices based on my Department's survey of 900 large industrial consumers are published quarterly in "Energy Trends". I have asked for the latest available figures to be published in the Official Report.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I note was different from the answer to question No. 10, may I ask him to tell the House—as he referred in an earlier reply to market prices—what part of the elements that make up the price is represented by the external financing limit set by the Government, including the contributions required of electricity and gas, and what part is represented by the management and cost structure, and how those are being looked at with a view to reduction?

My hon. Friend knows that gas is, if anything, below what would be the free market price. That is clearly the case, because the demand for gas for industry exceeds the available supply. The electricity industry follows a policy of long-run, marginal-cost pricing. That brings us to the important question that my hon. Friend rightly raised concerning the structure of the industries' costs. It is a major objective of the Government to do everything that they can to bear down on the costs of nationalised industries in general and the monopoly industries in particular. My hon. Friend knows of the recently announced list of Monopolies and Mergers Commission references, which is addressed to precisely that objective.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in relation to electricity the position is extremely serious in certain industries? Will he reflect on the fact that at previous Question Times he has compared our position with that of France and has suggested that the French gain enormous benefit from cheaper nuclear electricity? Will he accept that those previous answers have igored the fact that the £1·4 billion write-off of capital expenditure to assist French nuclear generation is yet another example of how other Governments do not leave their industries with one hand tied behind their backs?

There is no point in the hon. Gentleman trying to bury his head in the sand. The French industry has a substantial advantage as a result of the large proportion of relatively cheap nuclear power that is available in France. Had we made the same sort of progress under the Labour Government we would have a different structure of electricity prices today.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me, with his usual candour, whether domestic consumers of oil will share the benefits that industry will gain from lower oil prices?

This is a free market, but my hon. Friend knows that there are already considerable signs at the petrol pumps of falling prices, from which the domestic consumer is able to draw full benefit.

When the right hon. Gentleman replies to letters and communications does he, as I hope, make it clear that Government policy is responsible for the substantial increase in energy and gas prices?

The Government have had the courage to stop the policy of the previous Government of holding gas prices to the domestic consumer artificially low, as a result of which industry had to pay substantially more. By getting a better balance between the price of gas to the home and the price to industry we have addressed ourselves to what is undoubtedly the major problem in energy pricing.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the advice of Messrs Rothschild's, merchant bankers, in relation to the fixing of share prices in relation to the privatisation of Amersham International.

I am satisfied that Rothschild's gave the Government their best advice.

Since, before the event, the Investors Chronicle solemnly told its readers to expect a premium of 30p over the existing share price of 142p, why was neither the Secretary of State nor Rothschild's as wise?

The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong. The Investors Chronicle said at the time the issue was announced, the price was announced and the prospectus came out—

26 February.

I am talking about the 14 or 15 February.

26 February.

That has nothing to do with it. The Investors Chronicle said that the issue was ambitiously priced.

26 February.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the commentators who, with the benefit of hindsight, have become instant experts, that if the issue had been carried out by way of tender or even at a higher price, bearing in mind the amount of interest that was retained in the issue, the net amount received by the Government may have been less and that the issue at least had the benefit of being spread very well among smaller investors?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a highly successful act of denationalisation. The taxpayer got a very fair price—19 times prospective price earnings, compared with 10½ times price earnings for the average share in the FT index and considerably less than 19 even for companies such as GEC and Marks and Spencer. The reason why the Opposition do not like it is that it was a successful piece of denationalisation.

Does the Secretary of State consider that his decision on the method of sale—and it was his decision—was the right one for the community?

I accepted the advice given by my advisers and I take full responsibility for that. I am satisfied that there was a very successful result. I have never known so much nonsense written or spoken about anything as there has been about the flotation. The idea that the price at which shares are being traded was the price that could have been secured for the offer as a whole at the first instance is a view shared by no one who knows anything about the stock market.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many letters or other communications have been received by his Department in regard to the incereases in gas prices that are to be made during 1982.

In recent weeks my Department has received about 300 letters and other communications about the increases in domestic gas prices announced by BGC on 25 February.

As Ministers seem unaware of the position, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the replies to those representations will make it clear that price increases result from Government decisions rather than any decisions of British Gas?

The replies sent by the Government will make it clear that the Government have had the courage to face the appalling mess that they inherited in the imbalance and lack of relationship to the real cost of supply that still gives rise—as the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has noted—to a tremendous and potentially more useful relatively cheap source of supply to many people.

Will my hon. Friend also make it clear in his replies that the price has been kept so artificially low that demand had outstripped supplies of gas and that many industries have been unable to obtain supplies? Is he aware that the balance had for too long been tipped against industry and in favour of the domestic consumer?

I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend says. The 15-month effective industrial gas price freeze to 1 March was the beginning of an attempt to ensure long-term job opportunities through recognising the needs of industry as well as the price of domestic gas.

If the policy is so self-evident, why was the first action of the Government to freeze gas prices?

It is increasingly extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman's only argument seems to be that previous policies of the Government were so wrong that we should have acted even more quickly to correct them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will decline to deal with the Mobil Oil Company, pending the outcome of its negotiations to locate a liquid petroleum gas tanker in the Solent.

No. In any case, Mobil is not negotiating to locate a tanker in the Solent.

Now that Mobil has backed off in the face of unanimous hostile opposition to this proposal, will my hon. Friend give the assurance that his Department, in its dealings with oil companies, takes note of their social activities? Will he say that he considers this proposal thoroughly anti-social?

I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. It is the policy of the Department of Energy to scrutinise carefully any proposals put to it by oil companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already set up a working party of officials to review urgently the existing arrangements and to recommend any changes that are felt necessary. Possible controls exist in legislation falling to the Health and Safety Executive and the Departments of Trade and Transport. I shall ensure that the views of the Department of Energy are always made available to my right hon. Friends.

Will my hon. Friend agree that while there may be powers to cover proposals such as the gas tanker, there is a need for legislation to ensure that the broader environmental input is considered?

My hon. Friend will, I think, agree that we would be wise to await the findings of the group set up by the Secretary of State for Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the date of the eighth round of licensing blocks for exploration in the North Sea and English Channel.

No decisions have yet been taken on the timing for an eighth round of offshore licensing.

When my hon. Friend is making his decision, will he consider whether it would be appropriate for at least some of the blocks to be allocated by auction to the highest bidding group?

As is normally the case, before each round of licensing all possibilities will be examined. I assure my hon. Friend that this will continue to be the case.

When the hon. Gentleman makes his allocations for the eighth round, will he give an assurance that they will not be used as a large handout to the new creation, Britoil, and thereby enhance the price and value of this new company? Does he agree that this would be an abuse of the licensing powers of the Secretary of State?

Britoil will be in exactly the same position as any other oil company. It will have the same opportunities to apply.

Aligning this matter to the previous question, will my hon. Friend ensure that the oil companies are made aware of their obligations to the fishing community before starting any exploration in the English Channel?

Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, in successive rounds of licences, progress has been made with the fishing industry. There has been considerable discussion at every level.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss the abolition of the corporation's monopoly buying powers.

I am in constant discussion with the chairman on this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the justification of the British Gas argument against Government legislation that the breaking of the monopoly on the purchasing of gas, thus providing more competition, will increase prices? Does not the logic of this argument cast doubts on the whole credibility of British Gas?

I must confess that I have never been able to understand the logic of the British Gas Corporation's position on this matter. It seems clear that the introduction of competition will mean greater choke for industry and, in fact, choice where none exists at present, and that prices will tend to be lower rather than higher, as would have been the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimated reserves of coal, natural gas and oil in the United Kingdom.

The NCB estimates that 45 billion tonnes will be ultimately recoverable. The latest estimates published in the 1981 Brown Book, less production to 31 December 1981 for remaining gas and oil reserves, are 1·8 billion to 4·0 billion tonnes for oil and 700 billion to 2,100 billion cubic metres for gas.

As our energy reserves are one of our greatest assets that give us advantages over our Western industrial competitors will the Government think c f withdrawing the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which will be guillotined later today, and which seeks to dispose of our national assets in the oil and gas industries? Is it not better that we should husband these resources for the advantage of the people rather than for private speculation?

The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. It is not the assets themselves, but the wise, efficient and competitive use of the assets that produces wealth for the nation. That is what the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will do, by ensuring more competitive use of those rare assets.

Is the Minister aware that much of our great reserves of coal should be used as soon as possible to the benefit of the country? Does he agree that he should get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see that no further local authority houses are built without chimneys to burn coal? Could he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to form his opinion more quickly arid to advertise his allowances and loans to industry to change over to solid fuel?

I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in forwarding his legitimate coal interest. However, coal can best serve the domestic and the industrial user if it can be supplied at competitive prices with security of supply. These are the two key things that coal needs to get itself back into these markets.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the operation of the boiler conversion scheme.

The scheme has resulted in a great deal of interest in coal conversion, although the rate of take-up of grants has been slower than expected. The scheme is currently under review and an announcement will be made shortly.

Does the Minister accept that most people consider this an extremely worthwhile scheme and are rather disappointed that it has not gone as well as was hoped? Will the Minister consider extending the scheme to include boilers using fuels other than oil?

I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the announcement that will be made shortly, but I am sure that he and other hon. Members interested in the scheme will remember what has already been reported in today's Financial Times about the massive and welcome increase of coal boilers planned by ICI.

It is regrettable that this scheme has been a gigantic flop in the past 12 months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, out of the recommendations or changes that will be proposed, will be able to help it along. Will the scheme be further hindered by the possible use of natural gas for steam raising, as could well happen under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, since this could affect the conversion to coal by many industrialists?

The hon. Gentleman spends so much time revelling in misery that he ignores the realities around him and the welcome news by ICI today for all interested in coal, as opposed to the politics of trying to make coal look unsuccessful.

If the take-up of grant under the scheme has been lower than expected, can my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what he did expect and what the take-up has been?

I did not say lower. I think I suggested that the commencement of the scheme was slower than those of us seeking rapid conversion expected. I also said that a further announcement would be made in the near future. In a recent debate I said that the figure was £71 million and that the initial applications numbered 61.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what disussions he has had with the chairman of British Gas concerning increases in the price of domestic gas in 1982.

I have had no discussions with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation about the increases in the price of domestic gas announced by the corporation on 25 February. These increases are consistent with the three-year financial target agreed by my predecessor with British Gas in January 1980. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this matter was debated in the House last week and approved by a large majority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is most regrettable that he did not have conversations with the chairman of British Gas about the 22 per cent. increase that has been imposed on gas consumers this year? Had he done so he would have discovered that the chairman very much resents the fact that the Gas Corporation is being made a scapegoat for the Government's disgraceful policy of putting a 10 per cent. tax on gas.

There is no question of a 10 per cent. tax. What is more, had it not been for Government policy on domestic gas prices—a policy with which the Gas Corporation was in a large measure of agreement—it would not have been possible to hold prices for industrial consumers of gas.

Will not the Government's policy ensure that gas is used more efficiently in the future and that we are less likely to see the British Gas Corporation obliged to supply gas to domestic consumers at a relatively low price when it is unable to provide gas, even at a higher price, to those industrial consumers who need it?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is the position that the Government inherited and the position that we have changed substantially by the measures we have taken—unpopular though they are. There are other measures that we are looking into now. We have, for example, asked the British Gas Corporation to review its policy on combined heat and power.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for the Refreshment Sub-Committee of the Services Committee to consider the question of encouraging the provisions of low cholesterol meals in the House.

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Will he agree that while many people are aware of the dangers of the consumption of large quantities of butter, they are not so much aware of the problems associated with full fat milk? Will he suggest to the Refreshment Sub-Committee that it may care to invite the advice of the coronary unit at University College hospital, which has undertaken a good deal of work on the matter?

I can give an undertaking that we shall examine the widest aspects of the problem. I must, however, say that the outcome may have to be decided by the economics of the situation.

Will the hon. Gentleman raise with the Refreshment Sub-Committee the subject of early-day motion 311, which, apart from serving the incontrovertible purpose of congratulating the Sub-Committee on the cold buffet in the Members' Dining Room, allies with this the somewhat revolutionary concept that hon. Members' spouses should be admitted to the Members' Dining Room for lunch? Should the Refreshment Sub-Committee consider so radical a change to our existing arrangements, does the hon. Gentleman think it proper that the persons so invited should simply help themselves at the buffet and then proceed quietly and quickly into the corridor to consume their food rather than disturb our traditional and congenial arrangements?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question forms part of the original question. I would, however, view with disdain taking any action on the early-day motion. The next thing that would happen is that hon. Members' wives would wish to bring in children, and I can see no end of trouble arising.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will raise in the Services Committee the matter of the cleaning of the clock tower that houses Big Ben.

Work on the clock tower is part of the programme of restoration of the stonework of the Palace of Westminster, which is being funded by the Department of the Environment. It is not possible to say when that particular part of the programme will be undertaken.

What part of the programme will deal with that area of the Palace of Westminster that is most visible? Is it correct that work is now to move to an area that is almost invisible? When will this resounding symbol of democracy be encased in clean and safe surroundings?

It will obviously take some time to complete the whole work. I informed the House on 8 February that the next phase of the programme in 1982–83 will consist of work on the western elevation of the Palace. In due course, we shall come to the clock tower.

When the great symbol of democracy comes up for cleaning, will my right hon. Friend remind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that modern technology does not require the whole of Big Ben to be surrounded by scaffolding for that purpose?

We shall be glad to take technical advice from my hon. Friend.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that work on the symbol of democracy—the Big Ben tower—should be brought forward and that it should betackled next before anything else is done?

I thought that this Chamber rather than Big Ben was the symbol of democracy, but I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that he has considered the programme carefully and I doubt whether he will wish or think it appropriate to alter what he has decided after consideration.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Services Committee to consider the matter of placing within the precincts of the House statues commemorating champions of universal suffrage in the United Kingdom.

The erection of commemorative statues within the precincts of the House is not normally a matter for the Services Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more appropriate than the question whether there should be a statue of Stanley Baldwin in the Member's Lobby 3 the question of honouring in this building those such as the Chartists and the suffragette leaders who fought to establish universal suffrage in Britain?

That is a matter of opinion and the hon. Gentleman must seek wider support in the House if he wishes ultimate success for that design.

Having regard to the Conservative Party resolution of 1887 on this matter, Mrs. Pankhurst's Tory connections and the work of the Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association, should we not have bipartisan agreement on a suitable commemoration, although not necessarily this one?

That is a matter that could be pursued. It seems to me that there are many candidates but few pedestals.

As one of the consequences o universal suffrage, however regrettable, has been the appearance in strength of the Labour Party, would it not be appropriate to honour the two Prime Ministers who did most to enable the Labour Party to enter this Chamber, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald?

They, too, are candidates and there is a certain amount of support for a statue of one of those late Prime Ministers. We shall, in due course, have to see whether the House will, at some stage, wish to erect it statue of Baldwin and, conceivably, MacDonald, although I doubt whether it will be in the immediate future.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Services Committee to consider the matter of access to the precincts of the House of television crews wishing to conduct interviews with hon. Members, in view of the obstruction and security risks which the present arrangements may cause.

I shall ask the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to look into the matter that the hon. Member has raised.

Can the Lord President confirm the information that I was given by an inspector of the House of Commons police, following an incident in which the T3 Corridor had been completely blocked for a long time by a television crew and their equipment, that all they needed to get into the House was a letter signed by a Member? Is it not obvious that the ease with which a signature could be forged presents the risk of imposters coming in through the security check concealing something much more lethal than television equipment?

That aspect can also be examined by the authorities of the House concerned with security. I am sorry about the inconvenience to which the hon. Gentleman was put. There are rules about what it is possible to do in the House without further permission, and I shall have the matter investigated.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied with the arrangements within the precincts of the House relating to research assistants.

As I explained to the House on Thursday, I have arranged for inquiries to be made into all aspects of the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend consider in that inquiry examining the desirability of foreign students acting as research assistants to obtain credits in overseas degree courses, in effect at the taxpayers' expense?

Yes, I shall go into this matter carefully in the inquiry, which will take a few weeks. I do not have the facts and particulars at the moment but I shall consider them when I have all the information that I need.

Is it not scandalous, with 3 million unemployed, that hon. Members should be using the free services of foreign nationals as research assistants? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it rings a bit hollow for some hon. Members to criticise the Government's youth opportunities scheme—which at least pays those young people some money—while they are using the services of these foreign nationals free?

That is one opinion, and I have no doubt that there are many others, but I think that it would be better to establish the facts first.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may be the value of these young people they should not be described as research assistants, as I am not aware that any of them make any contribution to known knowledge.

A number of allegations of that kind have been made and have led me to take an interest in this matter. As a result, inquiries will be made.