asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any representations from organisations representing farmers or landowners in connection with claims for compensation arising from coal mining subsidence following the publication of the Flowers report on coal and the environment.

I have received representations from the National Farmers Union and the British Property Federation.

I thank my hon. Friend for the sympathetic and realistic attitude that he and his Department have taken towards compensation for coal mining subsidence. In view of the application by the National Coal Board to work coal under the Vale of Belvoir, does my hon. Friend agree that people whose property suffers subsidence from coal mining do not receive the same consideration as property owners whose properties are acquired for other purposes? Will he have consultations with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment to see that fairness and equity prevail in the future?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We all wish to see a proper balance struck between the interests and needs of the coal industry, of property holders, and of the environment. I take his point about the need for consultation, which I know exists, and I shall stress that to my ministerial colleagues.

I represent a community in which for nearly a 100 years properties have suffered from subsidence. If there is to be a new regime for the Vale of Belvoir or anywhere else, will it extend to communities that have long suffered from that problem?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We all appreciate the excellent work of the Commission on Energy and the Environment, and the degree to which the CENE report has led to detailed debates with many local authorities, who have considerable experience in such matters.

Will the. Minister accept that there will be considerable support from both sides of the House for legislative action to improve the present regime whereby the National Coal Board is judge, jury assessor and compensator for too many people?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from our debates that that, among other matters, is being considered in the Government's answer to the CENE report recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current annual rate of public expenditure in alternative, non-nuclear, energy sources in each of the EEC countries, converted as near as possible to £ sterling at the present rate of exchange.

The latest available figures are those collected by the International Energy Agency. They cover eight of the 10 Community countries—excluding France and Luxembourg—and show that in 1981 the United Kingdom spent £15·1 million and was in second place. I have arranged for the figures to be extracted and published in the Official Report.

Is not the disparity between public expenditure on infinitely renewable energy resources and the expenditure on nuclear power utterly grotesque? Is the Minister aware that after 18 years of the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme and the expenditure of billions of pounds of public money, it still satisfies only 1 per cent. of our energy needs? Given a modest improvement in financing, renewable resources could do far better than that.

The hon. Gentleman and I seem to have this dialogue every time there are energy questions. My answer must remain the same as it was the last time. We have a "renewables" programme which establishes the potential of having renewable energy when we need it. Equally, we believe that nuclear power is a proven technology. The AGR on stream at Hinkley Point is one of the best power stations on the grid. Three other AGRs are expected to come on stream within the next 12 months. There are two new generation AGRs which are progressing according to plan.

rose—

Order. The questions and answers are too long.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are spending more on research into alternative forms, of energy? That money could be more effectively used if there were no duplication of research with our EEC partners.

I should not have made the point, but my hon. Friend persuades me to say that in 1976–77, when the Labour Government were in power, about £274,000 was spent on renewable energy. The present figure is £15·1 million.

Instead of giving us yah-boo answers, does the Minister agree that it would be a disgrace if we were not spending more on alternative sources of energy following the oil crisis of 1973–74? Is he aware that there is great disquiet about the Government's cuts in resources for alternative sources of energy? Can he justify that action when the Middle East is in a state of crisis?

When we were about six or seven years into the renewable programme it was essential to establish priorities. It is always easy to duck these choices—we have admirable precedents from Labour Members—when decisions have to be made. However, we felt that the time had come when we should pick some winners, and that is what we tried to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies have been made by his Department of the relative cost of establishing new energy-producing capacity against introducing new conservation measures to achieve the same net energy effect.

There is no simple choice to be made between investment in energy conservation rather than supply.

I do not expect the Minister to accept the case of Friends of the Earth and the link that it believes exists between investment in nuclear power and gains from energy conservation. However, does he accept that it has been able to identify substantial gains that would be available to us? Will he replace the advisory council with a standing commission on energy conservation that will investigate these issues and take evidence? Will he consider putting in his private office a supporter of Friends of the Earth?

We have recently reconstituted the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, on which many interests are represented. We believe that it will be an extremely effective body under the distinguished leadership of Dr. Telfer. It is easy to suggest that we should not spend so much money on power stations, but the hon. Gentleman should know that only 7 per cent. of space heating is by electricity. Even if a 25 per cent. saving were achieved in conservation on space heating, electricity demand would be reduced by only 2 per cent. That is why there is no easy relationship between the two factors.

Is it more cost effective to spend public money on keeping open a few high-cost uneconomic pits or on improved insulation in public sector buildings?

My hon. Friend poses a choice upon which I do not feel I should comment.

When does the Department of Energy hope to comment on the report of the Select Committee on Energy, which has some valuable things to say about the proper balance between supply and demand?

I am aware that the Select Committee has recently reported. The Department welcomes the report and is currently studying its response to it, which will be made later in the year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the studious agnosticism of his original answer was somewhat disappointing? It would be more appropriate if his Department conducted such studies, whatever the methodological difficulties?

I was trying to convey to the House that I believed in both approaches, not that I did not believe in anything. It is necessary that we have new and efficient power stations to replace elderly power stations in the 1990s. It is equally necessary that we continue to have an effective energy conservation programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total borrowing from the EEC by the National Coal Board for the years 1971 to 1979 and 1979 to 1982.

It was £418 million and £349 million respectively.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Has any restriction been placed on the National Coal Board's borrowings from the EEC since 1979?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the absence of borrowings in 1981. That is a reflection of the fact that throughout most of the year it was cheaper by more than 3 per cent. to borrow from British rather than foreign sources.

Following the petroleum industry's financial support of the liquefaction plant, does the Minister intend to proceed with the plant on an experimental basis? Is he aware that if the Government put £1 million into the project the EEC will make £5 million available?

The hon. Gentleman may remember that previously I told the House that the issue was being reviewed by the National Coal Board. The first meeting of the board's review will take place this week.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions his Department holds on a regular basis with the major oil companies; what subjects are discussed; and when the next meeting will take place.

My Department frequently meets the oil industry in order to discuss a wide range of subjects and will continue to do so.

Have the violent fluctuations in petrol prices in recent years been raised in the discussions with the companies, and has their attention been drawn to the public concern that these price movements have caused? Is it possible to take some action through, for example, the European Community?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I remind him that harmonisation within the Community was designed to remove dependence on oil and to try to establish common principles for energy pricing. United Kingdom prices net of tax are currently the lowest in the European Community. Alignment of United Kingdom prices to Continental levels would mean a substantial increase in United Kingdom prices.

Has the Minister been told by the companies that the fall in the oil profile in the late 1980s and early 1990s will mean that we shall lose net self-sufficiency in Great Britain and that about five medium-sized fields will have to be approved every year if we are to keep pace with demand? Will the Minister tell us exactly what will happen about annex Bs?

My information does not tally with that of the right hon. Gentleman. The highest level of exploration since 1977 has been achieved on the United Kingdom continental shelf this year. More exploration wells were drilled in the first half of the year than in the first half of last year. If this rate of activity continues for the rest of the year, a new record could be set in 1982. The Department is in discussions with the licencees of North Alwyn and Clyde. I expect the licencees to submit their projects for approval shortly. Consequent orders should be placed before the end of 1984.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the oil companies, will he be hawking around the secret report on the valuation of Wytch Farm, made, apparently, at a cost of £100,000? Will the Select Committee have the chance to examine the report before the sale takes place so that the House can made a judgment on whether there is again to be a forced sale at a knockdown price to remove an important asset from the nation and from British Gas?

That is a matter for the British Gas Corporation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that while exploration is an indication of the general level of activity, development is what really matters? Is he not concerned that the Treasury's need for money is overcoming the national interest in getting fields developed, especially in the interests of creating employment?

I cannot accept that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a difficult task in balancing the scales of justice and ensuring that the nation gets its due in the national interest, while at the same time not removing incentives from oil companies to invest in the North Sea. I do not agree that the companies are postponing the development of an oilfield. If that has taken place, taxation has been only one element in the decision. It is one that usually comes a poor third.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the representatives of Shell and Esso, will he put it to them that the use of the ICI case, which is now before the courts, as an excuse for a reappraisal of the cracker and NGL plants at Moss Morran will be wholly unacceptable to the people of Fife?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's very great interest in these matters, which are near to his constituency. I can assure him that any such suggestion from Shell and Esso will not be greeted with any sympathy.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the oil companies, will he try to impress upon them the absolute necessity for an adjustment in the prices of fuel in rural areas, because at present, as my right hon. Friend is aware from his constituency, the prices are devastating and causing a great deal of concern throughout all the rural areas in Scotland?

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about rural constituencies, as I am. The wholesale price disparity, which remains less than the retail disparity, is likely to narrow as the companies reintroduce temporary sales allowances. Department of Energy officials have been anxious for them to be reintroduced. I am glad to be able to tell the House that one major oil company this weekend reintroduced temporary sales allowances, which should substantially benefit rural areas. I trust that other companies will follow.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether there are circumstances in which his consent is required to proposals for the closure or disposal of National Coal Board facilities.

Apart from overseas activities, the board does not require the consent of the Secretary of State for the closure or disposal of facilities.

Does the Secretary of State realise that many people in the mining industry will look askance at his statement? Does he not think that it is ridiculous and ludicrous that there should be a difference between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board on what will happen to the mining industry, for example, with regard to pit closures? Will he bear in mind that if he does not want to create disharmony in that nationalised industry he should avoid doing what the Government have been doing too often and too regularly—selling the plums of nationalised industries to their friends and leaving the rest to be looked after by the nation?

I am sure that, having got that off his chest, the hon. Gentleman feels much better. There is not the difference between the NCB and the NUM—where it matters—that the hon. Gentleman professes to discern. The fact is that pit closures are dealt with through the board's review procedures with the unions, which are at local level, with a right of appeal at national level. The NUM, its geologists and others are constantly in discussion with the NCB at area level on all those matters. Those procedures were instituted in the early 1970s. They continue to this day.

Will my right hon. Friend explain who benefits when men are made to stay at work in old pits, which are extremely unhealthy, when resources are available to open new pits, where plenty of jobs should be available?

My hon. Friend has a good point. There are many areas in which miners can see the case clearly for the closure of pits and are happy to accept redundancy money. It is interesting to note that when Mr. Scargill was president of the Yorkshire area of the NUM, 11 pits were closed, all with his agreement.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's contribution to the difficulties that have arisen is based on the fact that there has been a delay in replacing capacity? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help if the Government considered giving assistance for the replacement? I refer to the disgraceful episode of the Vale of Belvoir.

I do not see where the disgrace is about the Vale of Belvoir, because I understand that the NCB has made a fresh application, which will be considered soon by the planning authority responsible, which is the Leicestershire county council. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that replacement capacity is important. He may be interested to know that since 1974, when the "Plan for Coal" came into operation, 8 million tonnes of capacity have been lost through closures and 16 million tonnes—twice that amount—of new capacity have been created.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further progress has been made towards establishing a commercial fast breeder reactor in the United Kingdom.

The National Nuclear Corporation, in association with the Atomic Energy Authority, is further developing the reference design for a commercial scale fast reactor which was announced by the AEA last year. The authority is undertaking a major programme of fast reactor research and development in support of this work based on the prototype fast reactor and associated fuel plant at Dounreay.

I am grateful for that answer and the answer to the three written questions which I tabled last Thursday. In what year does the Minister estimate that the commercial fast-breeder reactor will be built? Will the experimental establishment at Dounreay be the basis on which the commercial fast breeder reactor will be established?

It would be impossible for anyone to specify when that reactor will be built. That is a factor in the review of all the policy options that are involved in the Government's review of the fast breeder. With regard to Dounreay, the Government have made it clear that all aspects of fast breeder development must be examined in their policy debate.

Bearing in mind the importance of Dounreay to the Highland economy, will the Minister give a guarantee that that establishment will not be closed?

I should have thought that it is not the time to give guarantees when one is considering policy options—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and those who wish to encourage irresponsible debate can mutter from Labour Benches. The policy is being reviewed, as the Government have made clear. Dounreay has an important role in the Highlands development area, and there are important employment opportunities at Dounreay, which is a key factor in any such review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now 29 years since the first experimental fast-breeder reactor started at Dounreay? Is he aware that many of us believe that all Governments have been somewhat slow in maximising the opportunities of the fast breeder, which would benefit not only our country but many countries throughout the world if we were able to develop a small fast breeder that could be exported?

My hon. Friend is right. The development has been going on for nearly 30 years. The demonstration fast-breeder reactor has been in operation from 1959 to 1977. It is clear that the fundamentals of nuclear development have also changed. The thermal programme in the world has developed more slowly than had been anticipated. It is normal to review the current position on the basis of fundamental economic change.

While the Minister has recognised the importance of Dounreay to the economy of that part of the world, and while he cannot say now that the new fast-breeder reactor will go to Dounreay, can he give an assurance that in the foreseeable future—for example, five years—no jobs will be lost at Dounreay?

All that I can say is that there is a legitimate examination of the policy options. Within that examination the proper role of Dounreay is a key factor, not just in terms of the job opportunities in the Highlands, but in terms of its expertise and excellence in fast-breeder development.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of coal stocks at the nearest convenient date at power stations in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of coal stocks held by the National Coal Board.

At the end of June the figure in each case is 22 million tonnes.

That is an encouraging figure. Now that coal can be moved freely by rail, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will use the summer months to build up the stocks to maximum capacity so that if, regrettably, the threat from Mr. Arthur Scargill were to materialise, the nation would be as well equipped as possible to meet it?

Those are matters for the NCB and the Central Electricity Generating Board. I am sure that the NCB is anxious to sell as much coal as possible. I am sure that the CEGB is aware of the factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the CEGB has increased the percentage of electricity generated from coal? Will he say to Mr. Scargill that there is no point in producing coal merely for stockpiling, but that it has to be sold?

My hon. Friend is right. It is true that the percentage of electricity generated by coal has increased. That is a counterpart to the amount generated by oil, which has diminished. If we were to go back from 82 per cent. generated by coal to 68 per cent., that would cost an extra £200 million a year. As for consulting Mr. Scargill, that might be difficult, because at present he is on holiday in Cuba and does not get back until the middle of next month.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could be serious for a moment. Does he agree that coal stocks could be an appreciating rather than a depreciating asset, bearing in mind the problems in the Middle East? What level of coal stocks does he consider that the industry should have?

It is as much for the industry as for me to decide that. I think that the industry would feel—I would agree—that the present level of pithead coal stocks is exceptionally high. Bearing in mind the present level of interest rates—we all want them to come down— the cost of carrying such stock is a heavy burden on the Coal Board. They are higher than is desirable. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of having adequate stocks at power stations.

Bearing in mind the increased industrial activity on behalf of railway, Health Service and other workers that is now promised by the National Union of Mineworkers, can my right hon. Friend assure me that there is some danger of some stocks being reduced in the next six months?

That may be so. There was a reduction in power station coal stocks during the prolonged ASLEF dispute in February and March of this year. I do not know whether, as a result of that, the generating board burnt more oil to preserve coal stocks. That was also attacked in The Economist. It is difficult to satisfy even The Economist at any time, let alone a more representative audience.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of coal stocks or of an energy surplus will not be resolved until there is a Government who are eager to promote economic recovery? Will the right hon. Gentleman underline the point that he seemed to make earlier? Will he say clearly to the nation that it would be idiotic for Britain to reduce its energy production capacity to match the continuing recession?

It is essential that the Coal Board makes itself economically viable. It recognises that. That is essential for the future and the success of the coal industry. That is true, irrespective of the present recession.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss future investment in the coal industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss investment in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss investment in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when last he met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss investment in the coal industry.

I meet periodically the National Coal Board and the NUM to discuss different aspects of the coal mining industry, including investment.

We all enjoy Mr. Scargill's frequent contributions to political debate. Will my hon. Friend confirm what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said—that Mr. Scargill has gone to Cuba?

He should stay there.

I should not like him to stay there. He is the best ally that we Tories have. When Mr. Scargill returns, will my hon. Friend inquire whether the visit was political or whether he was trying, for once, to help the British coal mining industry? For example, is Cuba a large potential market for British coal?

I do not have ministerial responsibility for the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. However, I am sure that, as we all know that 82 per cent. of coal is burnt in our power stations, hon. Members will be interested to know that Cuba burns only oil. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Cubans can be persuaded to do as well as we do.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first the three other hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

When will the Government be able to tell the Coal Board and the NUM that it is time to fix a realistic programme for ending the subsidies and the industry's monopoly by introducing private capital in partnership, so that we can inject some competition? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsensical that British companies such as BP should be forced to go abroad to mine coal and are prohibited from contributing to the economy and genuine competition in Britain?

It is sometimes sad and of significance to us all to remember that, in the past 15 years or so, about £26 billion has gone from the private sector into offshore oilfield development. The country has invested only £3 billion in the coal industry. I say "only", although that is obviously a sizeable amount of money. Investment in the coal industry is in all our interests. One would hope that the industry would welcome it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that capital investment in the industry this year will reach nearly £900 million? Does he agree that the miners should, therefore, ignore the militant calls of Mr. Scargill and continue the expansion of their industry by opening new pits and closing old, uneconomic ones?

I should like the industry to carry on with its present excellent productivity and improvements. To the extent that the industry is progressing well, I trust that everyone will notice the large amounts of investment that have been made in the industry since "Plan for Coal". There has been £3½ billion of investment. That is considerably more than the £2½ billion that was expected under "Plan for Coal".

Will the Minister do all that he can to bring on the coal liquefaction scheme at Point of Ayr? Is he aware that, in North-East Wales, in the county of Clwyd, unemployment is now 22 per cent. or more and that there is nearly 40 per cent. male unemployment in Flint? Does he understand that unemployed construction workers look to the scheme to help provide them with work?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that I recently met representatives from Clwyd. As I said earlier, a review by the Coal Board of the plant is in process. It is vital, as with many other areas, that projects are developed economically and rationally, for the success of the coal industry in the long run.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that, unless the present scheme by the Coal Board for the extraction of oil from coal is shown to be completely unworkable, regard will constantly be had to Britain's need for assured supplies of oil, which will eventually run out otherwise, and that oil could be extracted from coal, of which we have almost unlimited reserves?

My hon. Friend is assiduously pursuing his constituents' interests. I understand his point. He will wish to examine the thorough Coal Board review before I comment further.

Will the Minister bear in mind that when private capital ran the mining industry it was in a deplorable condition? I hope that he will resist the proposals that have been advanced by his hon. Friends.

I trust that those whom I respect and who had interests in and responsibility for the coal industry in the past will join the latter part of the twentieth century with regard to investment by reputable organisations. We are not in 1930, we are in 1982.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the taxpayer is losing about £35 million as a result of not being able to import more coal? Instead of expecting the CEGB to import 4 million tonnes, as contracted, and then dumping 2 million tonnes of it in Europe, does he agree that it would be more rational to import into the United Kingdom?

I have learnt from experience in the past few years that rationality is not the basis of every debate on the coal industry. The detailed facts that my hon. Friend suggests bear further examination.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that investment is the key to progress in the coal industry. Will he consult the Government about oil from coal? Does he agree that it not only affects the future of the coal industry, but that British technology could be at stake?

As a member of the Government, I shall indulge in self-consultation. We must make the right decisions in these matters. The right decisions require us to examine the matters carefully, thoroughly and responsibly. We are dealing both with the coal industry, which is crucial, and the future of taxpayers' money.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is now in a position to announce the terms and conditions on which Britoil's shares will be put on to the market.

No, Sir. However, I can assure the House that there will be no flotation of Britoil and, indeed, no final decision about the method of sale until the House has reassembled after the Summer Recess.

That is a very welcome reply about timing, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to consider some form of tender option bid so that a price may be set before he embarks on the issue of the shares to the market generally?

That is certainly among the matters at present under consideration.

I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to bring Britoil to the market, but can he say to what extent the public issue of the shares in the autumn will depend on stability of oil prices? Would further falls in the international price seriously affect the possibility of bringing the shares to the market in the autumn?

As I have always made clear, the condition of both the oil market and the oil share market will be among the factors to be taken into account when we finally decide on the timing of the issue. So far, I see no reason why the flotation should not go ahead in the autumn. However, as I have said, no decision has been taken. The decision will be taken nearer the time in the light of conditions at that time.

The right hon. Gentleman has just sold the basic pass. Does he not recall the repeated assurances that he and other Ministers gave that there would be no sale of Britoil unless the best possible price could be obtained? Does he agree that no one in his right mind would try to sell a large number of oil shares in the current state of the market? Will he therefore abandon the artificial deadline that he has set to sell the shares by November this year and stand by the assurances given to the House?

The hon. Gentleman cannot be listening with the care that he usually shows or the care that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) would have shown if he were present. Nobody, not even the hon. Gentleman, knows exactly what conditions will be like in the autumn. All that I have said is that a decision will be taken nearer the time, when we have a better idea of what the conditions are.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the reorganisation of areas within Lancashire by the North-Western electricity board; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations about the plans of the North-Western electricity board to reorganise its areas. This is essentially a management matter for the board.

Is the Minister aware that there is substantial resentment in the Blackburn area, particularly among the staff, about the way in which the decisions were made, particularly the appointment of senior staff, before a decision was made about the location of the new offices? As the explanation given for the changes was that they would secure financial savings, what monitoring will be carried out by the Department or the Electricity Council to ensure that savings are indeed made?

Although I in no way underestimate the concern that these matters cause in individual constituencies, they are essentially matters for the day-to-day management of the board. Accordingly, the powers of the Department are limited, although we keep in touch on these issues. I know enough about the subject to know that the chairman and deputy chairman of the area board take very seriously the complaints that the hon. Gentleman has raised and would be willing to meet him. The chairman of the North-Western Electricity Consultative Council is also prepared to become involved if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Is it not strange that the area with the best record in labour relations and efficiency has been eliminated? Is this not another case which proves that, whether it be polytechnics, new towns or whatever, Preston is always preferred to Blackburn, and does my hon. Friend agree that that should stop?

As I was born in Dorset, I should perhaps not intervene too much in any rivalry that may exist between Preston and Blackburn. These are difficult matters, but, in the interests of efficiency and serving the consumer best, area boards throughout the country have been trying to cut administrative overheads. That is always difficult, but there are local ways of putting forward objections and having them heard. Apart from anything else, the part-time members of the North-Western board are in the majority and can intervene if they see fit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Preston are delighted that the part of the North-Western electricity board to which he referred has been centred on Preston and that we are very grateful for the management decision that was taken? Is he also aware that that view is shared by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who is not on the Conservative Benches?

I think that at this point discretion should be the better part of valour.

In considering consultation with other bodies, will the Minister consult the Glass Manufacturers Federation, which represents all the glass firms in the North-West, about its consumption of electricity and about the reorganisation of the electricity board's undertaking in the North-West?

I have visited factories in the North-West on several occasions since taking office. Representatives of industries know that my door is always open to them if they wish to discuss electricity prices. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, in that most people feel that they are paying more than they should for electricity. That is why it is crucial for area boards to be able to show that they are not carrying unnecesssary fat in their administration, which means that extra costs are passed on to consumers, particularly industries facing difficulties such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred.