asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase or decrease in labour productivity in the coal mining industry over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

Provisional figures show that in 1982 overall revenue output per manshift averaged 2·41 tonnes, an increase of 1·3 per cent. on 1981.

The increase is very welcome, but does not my hon. Friend think that it is a little disappointing compared with the excellent figure for last year? Why has there been a slowdown?

It is a positive increase, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is obviously disappointing. Essentially, the reasons relate to two factors—the sympathetic industrial action with the health workers earlier in the year and the NUM overtime ban in October.

Will the Minister confirm that, although the figure is more modest than for many years, it is evidence of the enormous technological achievements that have taken place in the mining industry? Will he also confirm that our industry is the most successful deep-mining industry in the world and that it can remain so if the Government ensure that adequate investment is forthcoming?

Yes. It shows clearly the massive investment that has gone into the technological advance of our industry, and obviously both sides of the House welcome that. However, it is disappointing to all of us who want coal to be successful that the expected increases in productivity under the "Plan for Coal" have not materialised so far.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the unions had been able to fulfil their side of the commitment in "Plan for Coal", as the taxpayer and the Government have done with their investment, electricity prices and general industrial costs would be lower than they are today?

It is clear that all those who use electricity—82 per cent. of our electricity comes from coal generation—would benefit from any improvements in productivity patterns in the coal industry.

The Minister gave the figures. On the theme of disappointment, does he agree that it is also disappointing that, since this Government took office, there has been very little evidence of new pit sinkings?

What are the prospects for new pit sinkings? I ask that because there in lies the hope of achieving increased productivity?

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House after his recent operation.

The hon. Gentleman will know, of course, from his experience, that the vast majority of new investment since "Plan for Coal" has gone into the long-life pits in terms of improved technology. New pit sinkings are a facet of the long-term improvement of the industry, as also is the removal of the uneconomic capacity of the industry, which is part and parcel of that investment process.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has had recent discussions with the Electricity and Gas Consumer Councils to discuss standing charges of the gas and electricity industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implementation of his proposal that standing charges should be no greater than 50 per cent. for bills of £10 or less.

I am sure that the House will have noted with approval that the Electricity Council recommended just before Christmas that area electricity boards should adopt my proposal that standing charges should not exceed 50 per cent. of any domestic consumer's bill, and that two weeks ago the British Gas Corporation also decided to adopt the 50–50 scheme.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. However, is he aware that many hon. Members are anxious that action should be taken fairly quickly so that the benefit from this measure will be felt next winter?

I understand that the proposal for gas will not take effect until the first meter reading on or after 28 February, but that virtually all electricity bills that are issued from tomorrow will implement the 50–50 scheme, which will cover the current winter period.

The nation, particularly pensioners and those on supplementary benefit, welcome the development and will be grateful to hear that the plan is to be speedily implemented, but will my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of making it 100 per cent. for pensioners?

About half of the beneficiaries of the 50–50 scheme will be pensioners—perhaps those pensioners who are in the greatest need. However, if there were no standing charges for all pensioner households, it would cost about £300 million a year, which would be unacceptable. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend would not wish that. What is important for all electricity consumers is that the industry has agreed that the average increase in electricity prices generally in 1983–84 will be zero.

Is the Minister aware that out of more than 9 million pensioners only a small number will be affected by this new measure? Do not old-age pensioners have more right to the £300 million and more which over the next few years the Government will offset by means of tax relief to the banks, which send money to Argentina and other countries for the rescheduling of their debts.

I sometimes think that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman were to go to Argentina. His response to this measure is characteristically churlish. It will benefit about 1 million gas consumers and up to 2 million electricity consumers who are particularly hard up. From the letters of complaint that I and my colleagues have received the preponderant issue concerns a standing charge that is higher than that for unit consumption.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative on the standing charge limitation. Is he aware that the total income from standing charges to the electricity and gas industries is over £900 million? Therefore, will he organise an audit to find out exactly how the money is being used, because it is impossible to believe that that vast sum of money could be used just to maintain existing equipment?

My hon. Friend has made a good point. Some kind of audit is needed. It was for that reason that I agreed with the industries last autumn that independent consultants should examine the justification for the levels of standing charges. Those reports are now with the industries and I am awaiting their comments on them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his reference to no increases in electricity prices, since the general election domestic gas prices have risen by 97 per cent. and electricity prices by 82 per cent.? Is that not the most significant feature of energy prices and a disgraceful indictment of the Government?

There is no disgrace at all. These matters have been debated in the House, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had other responsibilities at the time and was not in his place to hear the arguments. However, I assure him that there has been a sharp increase in energy prices generally over the past three years. Gas prices increased more because the Labour Government, of which he was a member, deliberately held down domestic gas prices to try to achieve some short-term electoral benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he estimates the production of oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf will peak, and at what figure; and what is his estimate of production in 1990, 1995 and 2000.

The 1982 Brown Book forecast shows that in 1985 production will be between 95 million and 130 million tonnes. It is not possible to give useful forecasts further ahead.

That answer begs the question about net self-sufficiency in Britain to the end of the century and is hardly relevant to the 30 or so marginal fields that await exploitation. Do Department of Energy Ministers share the view that the present system of taxation, whatever its rate, is the only system and that proposals by the Institute for Fiscal Studies are to be rejected, or do they see some fundamental change in taxation as a way of leading marginal fields into production?

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the consultations that have taken place between the Department of Energy and United Kingdom Offshore Oil Association and between the UKOOA and my right hon.

and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be wrong of me to anticipate what my right hon. and learned Friend will say, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all representations have been carefully considered.

Would my right hon. Friend affirm the Brown Book figures if the oil price fell to $25 a barrel?

My hon. Friend is skilled in these matters and he will be able to make his estimates as well as we or outside bodies can. The estimates in the Brown Book were made when the oil price was substantially higher, and the estimates that will appear in this year's Brown Book will take account of any variations that might take place in the price of oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy on what date he was informed of the arrangements existing between the present chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Westinghouse Corporation.

Sir Walter Marshall, in his personal capacity, does not have, and has never had, any commercial relationship with Westinghouse. Of course, as former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, as chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, and as chairman of the pressurised water reactor task force, he has been in frequent contact with Westinghouse. I should add that the Government have the highest regard for the way in which he carries out his public duties.

Is it in the public interest to have in charge of choosing the type of generating capacity that Britain is to install in the 1990s a man who has had a close personal relationship with the Westinghouse Corporation for the last eight years? When the Secretary of State was informed of these matters on 10 May 1982, why did he not notice that there was a strong conflict between the interests of Sir Walter Marshall and those of the public? Is it not about time that these matters were fully revealed and debated in the House?

The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to my answer. Had he done so he would have realised that the Government have absolute confidence in a man who has served Governments of both political parties with great distinction throughout his public career. There is no conflict of interest whatever in the highly qualified technical advice that he has consistently given to Labour and Conservative Governments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members regard the question by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) as a disgraceful innuendo? We have the greatest confidence in Sir Walter Marshall. We have known him over a great many years and regard him not only as a distinguished scientist and engineer but as a man of the utmost integrity.

I can add nothing to my hon. Friend's remarks other than to deplore the way in which this forum is used to smear a great public servant.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss his proposals to offer for sale the corporation's 50 per cent. stake in the Wytch Farm oilfield.

Discussions with the corporation about the disposal take place frequently.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's frequent discussions and, above all, his commitment to allowing the public to invest in the oilfield, but does he realise that there is growing concern about the transparent delaying tactics being used by the British Gas Corporation? Will he find time to have a quiet, but firm, word with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to tell him—

"Firm word"? That is bad grammar for a publicly educated schoolboy.

Order. We all know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is here, but he must learn to control himself when other hon. Members are speaking.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman of the British Gas Corporation that continuing to manouevre this ball into touch until after the next election will do neither him nor the corporation any long—term good?

I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern, and to some extent I share it. Having debated the issue several times, Parliament has decided that the British Gas Corporation's share of the Wytch Farm oilfield should be disposed of by the corporation and moved into the private sector. It would be a great pity if those responsible for the sale were to cause the taxpayer to obtain a less favourable price than he might otherwise have expected. It is merely a question of when the disposal takes place and in what form. It is not a question of whether it will take place, because Parliament has already decided that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has learnt something by now from the experience of Amersham International and Britoil, and that there is no question of selling off this valuable national asset at a knock-down price, against the advice of the BGC?

I should have thought that the lesson of Britoil is that I would be the last person to dispose of oil assets at a knock-down price.

Have not the BGC's delaying tactics over the sale been deliberately engineered to avoid the will of Parliament and to reduce the amount that the taxpayer is likely to obtain? Has not the role that the chairman has played, in putting an artificially high price on this asset, proved completely unacceptable?

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this issue was debated in Parliament several times and Ministers assured us that Wytch Farm would be sold, not at any price, but at a realistic price? Is it true that the highest bid so far is about half of the valuation of Wytch Farm?

The right hon. Gentleman may be giving too much credence to a figure floated some time ago by the BGC. Of course, he is right on the general proposition. The asset will be sold at a proper price, and not below that price.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is disgraceful to force the BGC—which found, exploited and made a success of the field—to sell off that asset, particularly when the market is weak? Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that it would be quite wrong for a sale to take place unless a proper price is obtained for that asset? Is not the very distinguished public servant who is the chairman of BGC entitled to the same degree of Government confidence in him as they give to those who support their point of view?

Of course the asset must be sold at a proper price, and not below that price. I have made that absolutely clear. That is the Government's view, and it will be carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what surplus of generating capacity for the efficient running of the grid and providing for future consumption he takes into account in considering the approval of new investment in generating capacity.

Since the Conservative party took office investment by the electricity industry has been approved only to reduce costs and to increase diversity of supply, not to increase capacity. However, the planning margin which the Central Electricity Generating Board has used hitherto is currently under review.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greater part of excess capacity is made up of old and inefficient plant and that it is largely coal-fired? In acquiring further capacity, will he take into consideration the need to acquire additional technology and to diversify fuel sources?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The diversification of fuel supplies is an important considera-tion. That is one of the important arguments in favour of increasing the proportion of our electricity that is generated by nuclear power.

If nuclear power is so cheap compared with the production of power by other means, why was the publication of the new study by the CEGB into the relative costs of nuclear, coal and oil-fired energy postponed from October to November, from November to December and from December to January? Who is sitting on it?

Nothing is being sat on. As a result of the Sizewell inquiry and the great interest that is taken in such matters, more information than ever before is being provided. Sometimes it takes a little longer than hitherto to provide such information. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would welcome that extra information.

In the review of the planning margin, will my right hon. Friend take full account of the growth of pump storage for the electricity system, since that must benefit the efficiency of the system?

Yes, Sir. However, its contribution—although important—is relatively modest.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it would be foolish to shift the balance of energy away from coal to any other form of fuel when there is a temporary lull in the oil market? Will he also confirm that during the 1950s and 1960s many people, including, in various Governments, Ministers in the right hon. Gentleman's position, made a grave error in turning away from coal and closing pits that should have been kept open and could be producing coal now? We do not want to make that mistake again.

Since we generate about 82 per cent. of our electricity from coal, the hon. Gentleman is hardly on a very good point. He has overlooked the fact that this Government introduced and extended the coal-fired boiler conversion scheme. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the extent to which business and industry avail themselves of that scheme will depend on the performance of the coal industry in every respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many incidents at nuclear installations have been reported to his Department since 1977.

Under the stringent reporting system introduced in 1977, 257 incidents have been reported to my Department. None were serious incidents as defined in the Nuclear Installations (Dangerous Occurrences) Regulations 1965 and none has given rise to any significant health hazard to employees of the plant or the general public.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the safety record of the British civil nuclear power programme compares favourably with that of any other nuclear power programme and is even better than the record of our own oil, gas and coal industries?

Our safety record compares more than favourably with that of any other major industry and with that of any other country. Three weeks ago, on the Channel 4 programme "The Friday Alternative", the work force at Sizewell A was interviewed and was quite bemused by all the horror stories about supposed scares on safety. The men said that their most difficult time was the journey to and from the nuclear plant.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statistics about safety standards in the British industry. Will he assure us that he keeps a watchful eye on the considerable number of incidents at the Cap de la Hague plant in northern France, which often bring pollutants towards the south coast of England and cause us considerable worry?

I am very conscious of that point. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to announce quite soon a formal agreement concerning exchanges of information in the event of an emergency in France or the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be signed shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will compare the level of fuel costs in industry in the United Kingdom with the level in the rest of the European Community.

A study of comparative European energy prices is currently being led by the CBI, involving relevant trade associations and supplying industries. I understand that the results will be available soon and I await them with interest.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while awaiting the outcome of that study, an industry-funded rationalisation scheme for EC smelting factories may be carried out? Is he further aware that Commonwealth Smelting Ltd. in my constituency, the only zinc smelting works in the United Kingdom, could be at a disadvantage when compared with its European competitors because our EC partners appear, contrary to the Treaty of Rome, to be subsidising their high energy consuming factories in Europe?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's special interest in the smelting of zinc in his constituency. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. I understand that our industrial electricity prices are broadly in line with those of EC competitors, but if my hon. Friend has clear evidence of any breach of Community rules by competitors I should be happy to raise the matter with the Commission.

Do not energy-intensive industries abroad enjoy high load factor discounts? Is it not a fact that in Italy such industries can buy electricity at 50 per cent. less than in the United Kingdom, in France at 40 per cent. less and in Germany at 25 per cent. less? Why do the Government not accept that foreign industrialists pay less for energy? Why do they not help British industry out of the doldrums by reducing industrial energy prices at home?

We shall have to wait and see what the most recent survey reveals. The hon. Gentleman has perhaps exaggerated some of the figures. A small group of high load factor consumers, accounting for probably not more than 2 per cent., would come high in the European list, but for the majority of industrial consumers the price charged for electricity in the United Kingdom is comparable to that charged by our European competitors.

Have not industry's energy costs improved vis a vis those of continental competitors in the past three years? Does not the only big discrepancy relate to the bulk supply electricity tariff, about which the Government plan to do something?

My hon. Friend is correct. That is a fact.

Have not the Government been saying, almost since they first took office, that they intend to do something for energy-intensive industries? Have not the Chemical Industries Association and the paper and board industry, to name but two, given the Government substantial evidence of the damage that high electricity prices cause them in European competition? Is it not about time that the Government gave them a real answer?

Representations have been made to the Government, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that Government measures worth over £250 million to help industry with energy costs were announced in the last two Budgets. They included new consumer-contracted load arrangements for the largest electricity users, a gas price freeze and help for foundry coke.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board and the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss future investment in the coal industry.

I shall continue to meet hem as appropriate.

If the Secretary of State is considering an early meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board and representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he guarantee to them that investment in the industry will continue and that he will consider increasing it? Is he aware that South Wales does not seem to be getting a fair share of coal board investment? I refer in particular to investment in the Phurnacite plant in the Aberaman area, where it is planned to go over to an ancit process?

Investment in the coal industry is running at a substantial level—at about £800 million a year or more—despite the fact that it is likely to make a loss of about £500 million this year before taking deficit grant into account. As the chairman of the National Coal Board has made clear on a number of occasions, a pound is a pound. That is as true in South Wales as in the rest of the country. A pound that goes in losses and uneconomic pits is a pound less for investment in the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend do something about that by pressing the coal industry to generate more of its investment requirement without increasing the taxpayers' deficit, by speeding up the closure of uneconomic and high-cost capacity?

The Government's policy is that the coal industry should move towards viability, but that cannot occur overnight.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of the NCB and the Government of Ireland the possibility of substituting British coal, at present used in Northern Ireland, for the alternative fuel now being used by Ireland? What effect is that likely to have on investment in the coal industry and on the market for British coal?

I am not sure whether that is a matter for me. In any event, I do not know the answer. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall do my best to respond.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the proposal for investment in the coal liquefaction plant at the Point of Ayr in my constituency is set to go ahead? When is work expected to start on the project?

The Under-Secretary made a statement in November last year and progress continues to be made towards the board's liquefaction project at the Point of Ayr.

Will the Secretary of State consider amending his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would meet the industry's representatives "as appropriate." Does he agree that, according to the answers that he has given, it is appropriate for him to meet representatives of the industry? Will he ignore the parrot cries for a massive pit closure programme and be constructive by introducing a programme for new capacity involving new pit sinkings?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's advice. He has great experience of the coal industry. The problem with the coal industry is not meetings, but economics.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers; and what responses he has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers relating to the future of the coal industry; and what replies he has given.

My right hon. Friend and I have received communications from the National Union of Mineworkers on a variety of topics in the past few months. Naturally, we take account of these in making decisions on the matters involved.

Does the Minister realise that in spite of what has been said the NUM is deeply concerned at how the Government are dragging their feet in coal liquefaction at the Point of Ayr and at the progress being made there? Does the Minister agree that some further benefits could be given to encourage industries that are doing well in converting from gas and oil to coal? When will there be further development at the Vale of Belvoir?

I shall try to address myself to one of those questions. I have received letters about liquefacation, but not from the NUM. I shall assume that I might receive such a letter, and provided that everything goes well with the new £500,000 that the Government are offering to the coal board to help with the new design studies, we can expect construction to commence in mid-1984, provided that all the other conditions are met.

Can the Department help the NUM and the Scottish area of the coal board to resettle the Kinneil miners, who were promised jobs elsewhere in the Langannet complex?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the coal board. It is a detailed matter related specifically to Scotland. I recall the board's public undertakings. The board has made it clear that there are sufficient jobs at other collieries in the area.

Would not the future of the coal industry be best served if the NUM agreed to allow the closure of the 30 most inefficient pits?

What nonsense.

I would not begin to debate in detail what happens at individual pits. It is clear to all who have a commitment to the long-term success of the coal industry that the faster the industry is able to remove its uneconomic tail and apply its investment to long-term, successful pits, the faster the industry will hold its present markets and gain new ones.

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr.

Wainwright), may I ask when the Government will be in a position to announce a decision about the Belvoir coalfield, which is to replace the Leicester coalfield?

As all hon. Members know, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Obviously, I hope that a statement can be issued shortly.

Will my hon. Friend answer my earlier question, which I do not think my right hon. Friend heard, and give us some idea of when work may be expected to start on the Point of Ayr coal liquefaction project?

I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley, (Mr. Wainwright) that, provided that the conditions were met, with the £500,000 of new Government aid, construction might be expected to begin in mid-1984.

Will the Minister resist the cries, which are increasing in intensity, from Conservative Back Benchers for a wholesale closure programme for British collieries and recognise that views of that kind cannot produce a balanced energy programme?

The view of all who are interested in a balanced energy programme and in the success of our coal industry is, I hope, that we should advance, if we can, and as fast as we can, the process of closure of uneconomic capacity. That is in the interests of all who wish the industry to succeed and I hope that all will help to achieve that rational goal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the foundry coke subsidy.

The aid will be continued until 31 December and will then end. It will enable increases this year in the list prices of United Kingdom foundry coke to be limited to £5 per tonne on 7 February and a similar increase in the summer. The cost of £8 million will be reflected in increases in the National Coal Board's deficit grant and external financing limit.

I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts in securing that decision, which will be especially welcome in the West Midlands foundry industry. Will he confirm the real help that the scheme gives in reducing industrial costs by comparing the price at the end of this year with that obtaining, say, at the end of 1981, and with the prices being paid by continental competitors?

The total aid, including the £8 million, will be about £22 million. The NEDC report showed that in January 1981 foundry costs were £103·80 per tonne, so, even with this year's increases, foundry coke costs to British industry will still be less in cash terms than they were two years ago and after the increases this February they will be less than those of all continental competitors except France.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress his Department is making in completing its study on the comparison of the cost-effectiveness of investment in new energy supplies and investment in conservation.

The study was published on 18 January and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

I welcome the Department's first contribution on this important subject. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report is inconclusive because, as stated in paragraph 87, it did not examine whether investment in conservation produced a higher return to the Exchequer than investment in new capacity?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that it will take some time for the report to be considered, but it clearly shows that there is no simple trade-off between investment in energy supply and investment in energy conservation. For example, peak demand is in general reduced proportionately less than average demand by measures such as loft insulation, and it is peak demand that determines the need for supply investment. Those points will have to be carefully studied and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to contribute to the deliberations.

In considering costings with regard to energy conservation, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will also consider social benefits, such as helping elderly people to suffer less from the cold—that is especially relevant today, when there is a lobby from Age Concern at the House—and the employment benefits to be derived from energy conservation, as jobs are certainly badly needed in Britain today?

I join others in welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to the House. He makes a good point. Nevertheless, decisions on energy conservation investment are best made by individual consumers in the light of their own circumstances and the correct price signals. The best way to encourage optimum deployment of resources in the energy sector is to ensure that prices reflect opportunity costs to the maximum extent possible.

Does the Minister agree that after three or four years of relying largely on price as the determinant of conservation it is time the Government recognised the employment benefits that would accrue from a more courageous investment and conservation programme? Does he agree that it is also time for investment in alternative and new forms of energy and that this year should see a marked advance in the combined heat and power programme, in which we thought the Government were interested?

The Government are certainly very interested in combined heat and power. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a study has already been carried out on this and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on it before too long.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of research into alternative forms of energy with particular reference to wind, wave and solar systems.

Progress continues on research into alternative sources; wind, geothermal and passive solar being the most promising.

I appreciate that the latest evidence suggests that alternative forms of energy can make only a marginal and modest contribution to our total energy requirements, but does my hon. Friend agree that they could nevertheless make a significant contribution in certain localities of our country? Will he confirm that research funds have been increased in previous years and that there is no duplication in research between Britain and, for example, other countries of the EC?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that this year our programme is expected to be in the region of £11 million to £12 million and is likely to continue at that level. We have concentrated on the most promising tech-nologies, which are wind, geothermal and passive solar. There is, of course, other research going on, but we endeavour to ensure that there is not too much duplication. It is almost impossible to avoid a degree of duplication, but that is kept to a minimum.

Will the Minister confirm that to date the geothermal experiments carried out in Cornwall have been extraordinarily successful? Will he let the House know precisely when he expects to announce the new contract, how much it will be for and what is the hold-up? To be honest, we all expected that the announcement would have been made by now.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Along with wind energy, geothermal energy shows the most potential. The major item of expenditure will be incurred in developing the extraction of heat from hot, dry rocks beneath the earth's surface. The second phase of this work, which has been very successful, is expected to cost approximately £10·3 million, of which the Department of Energy will provide about £9 million. I hope that it will not be too long before a final announcement is made.

What will be done to develop wind energy beyond what has already been developed on the Orkneys?

The experimental work on the Orkneys is still going ahead. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the best available advice shows that this source is likely to be more expensive per unit of electricity than hot rock geothermal energy, but nevertheless it compares favourably with wave energy, for example.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what response he has received from the British Gas Corporation with regard to the level of standing charges.

The British Gas Corporation recently announced that it will be limiting standing charges to a maximum of 50 per cent. of a domestic consumer's bill in relation to meter readings on or after 28 February 1983. I welcome this decision.

While, of course, my hon. Friend's remarks are extremely welcome—and I know that the whole House will congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on putting forward this initiative—may I ask whether the British Gas Corporation gave any excuse for the delay in replying to my right hon. Friend's initiative, especially when the electricity board replied a full month earlier and before Christmas?

The result that has been achieved from both the British Gas Corporation and the electricity board has been satisfactory. If one organisation took rather longer than the other to come to a conclusion, I am prepared to overlook that in view of the happy position that we have now reached.

Will the Minister confirm that, from the last election until October of last year, gas prices for domestic consumers rose by 97·7 per cent.? Is that not one of the highest increases in prices ever engineered by any Government? Is it not the case that the Government forced the British Gas Corporation to increase prices by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation for three years?

This is the second time this afternoon that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) has raised this matter. Can he not welcome the excellent announcement that has been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My right hon. Friend has already fully answered that question. One of the main reasons is that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member ducked all those issues while they were in power.

May I suggest that we consider those who will benefit as a result of the corporation's statement? There are many who might need to have this information and it is not sufficiently widely known at present. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with Sir Denis Rooke on exactly how more information can be given to ensure that this excellent step forward is understood?

I shall pass on my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is essential that as much publicity as possible is given to this excellent piece of news.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government information.

There is close co-ordination between the Prime Minister, myself and our ministerial colleagues on the presentation of Government policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a topic such as the need for multilateral nuclear disarmament requires such co-ordination? Is he prepared to state that the Government are planning a national advertising campaign to put across our realistic and forthright policy?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subject, but I must make it clear that no final decision has been taken about whether to conduct a campaign of the kind reported in the press.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, constitutionally, we have a Government of Britain and not of the Conservative party? Will he assure the House that there is no question of public funds being used for a propaganda campaign? Does he appreciate that there is no parallel whatever with the 1969 campaign, which was concerned with information and not propaganda?

I can only repeat that no final decision has yet been taken. Should there be such a campaign, however, I am sure that it will take account of the campaign mounted in 1969 by the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Lady was a member, and will of course have regard to information.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Government information and advertising should be confined to consensus matters such as new pensions arrangements? Should not the Conservative party itself pay for highly controversial propaganda of the kind involved in this instance? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is grossly improper and unfair to spend large sums of taxpayers' money to pay an American advertising firm to attack the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Labour party and others?

I can only repeat that no decision has yet been taken about whether to conduct such a campaign, but I must point out that information campaigns were conducted by the Labour Government on counter-inflation in 1975–76, and on the United Kingdom's commitment to NATO in 1969. For many of us that covers the broad span of accepted politics, but I realise that for some it lies outside the area of consensus. That is why one can never have an information campaign covering every possible point of political opinion.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Labour Government in 1969 sought to promote their defence policy by means of full-page advertisements in the national press, that was projected by some who served in that Government as co-ordination of Government policy? What has changed in the meantime to create the fuss that there has been in the past few days?

My hon. Friend fairly points to broad comparisons between the situation in 1969 and what might be the consequences if a campaign of information on our defence policy were now to be conducted. But I must say to the House that, much as I am enjoying this, I am to some extent but the John the Baptist for what comes in defence questions tomorrow.

If I may question John the Baptist on this point, will he use his considerable weight as Lord President of the Council and as the co-ordinator of Government information to point out to his right hon. Friends that the difference between the present situation and 1969 is that the Opposition in this case are totally against the Government's nuclear policy?

We all know what happened to John the Baptist. It is not for me to draw inferences or conclusions from the drift of the Labour party further and further into the neutralist non-nuclear camp.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is his intention, in the arrangements presently being undertaken to increase accommodation for hon. Members, to provide a separate office for each hon. Member.

Services Committee deliberations are still proceeding on how best to put to parliamentary use the accommodation in phase I of the redevelopment of the Bridge street site.

Is it not scandalous that we should have to ask for such a basic requirement as an office for each hon. Member? Will the Leader of the House, in spite of what he has just said, do something now, before it is too late, to ensure that it is the aim of the operation now being considered to have an office for each hon. Member? Will he also, as a matter of urgency, consider the present position with single rooms in the Palace? Is he aware that very few hon. Members, and perhaps no Back Benchers, have a single room in the Palace? Is it not of considerable value for hon Members to be as close to the Chamber as possible?

For fairness and accuracy, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, even if phase I of the Bridge street site were to be implemented, not every hon. Member would have a single room, even if that were generally thought to be desirable. I make no assumptions on what might be the judgment of the House on these matters, but I will draw the attention of the Services Committee to the hon. Gentleman's point about a further investigation of the accommodation that is available to see whether it might be more effectively utilised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a constituent contacts his Member of Parliament the very least he can expect is confidentiality? Whether it be other Members of Parliament, or their secretaries, research assistants or, indeed, their visitors, does he agree also that when one is telephoning about sensitive material on behalf of a constituent, that constituent should expect confidentiality, which he does not get at present when we are sharing offices?

I am sorry if my hon. Friend has real difficulty in securing the degree of confidentiality that he would wish, given the present accommodation of the House of Commons. I have to say—I hope that my hon. Friend does not take this in any hostile sense—that most hon. Members who have similar problems none the less manage to overcome them.

Is not an enormous amount of space within this building used by the other place, and if we abolish it, would we not have enough office accommoda-tion for all of us?

This matter was raised only a few weeks ago when I was required to answer questions on this issue. I do not think that I can do any better than refer to the rather dusty answer that I gave to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).

Has my right hon. Friend heard the cacophany of sound when three or four hon. Members are using the telephones at the same time in one office, or dictating letters to their secretaries, or a combination of these things? Does he agree that something muse be done to make facilities more suitable for each hon. Member?

I know that this point is argued in all parts of the House. It is for that reason that the House will fairly soon have the opportunity to debate the proposals For phase I of the Bridge street site, when these considerations can be weighed and judged.

Should not a room be found in the House of Lords for Admiral of the Fleet Lord Lewin, where he can discuss classified information in a way that only a Minister can do? How is it that he can discuss matters which the House of Commons is told—

Order. With every respect, that is going too far. I was willing to see how far the hon. Gentleman wanted to go.