asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his present plans relating to the introduction of the rationing of oil and petrol.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the present position of fuel stocks and on fuel rationing.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on oil reserves and the need for rationing.

As I told the House on 5th December, our reserve position does not suggest that the Government should now take action to ration petrol. That remains the position and we shall continue to watch the situation closely.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sunday Press was almost unanimous in its criticism that the Government are being dishonest about the facts? Is not the position very much altered by the statement from Kuwait yesterday? Does not this statement mean that there will be an effective reduction of 30 per cent. in our supplies? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Prime Minister has yet had a reply to his letter to the Arabs seeking an assurance that supplies to this country will be kept up in January, and subsequently?

As far as the comments of the Sunday Press are concerned, I note from the hon. Gentleman that whenever the Sunday Press is unanimous on a topic in future he will be in agreement with it. Regarding Kuwait, we have received important assurances from certain oil producers. There is no reason to suppose that the latest announcement affects this assurance in any way.

In order to clear up misunderstandings, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are exporting from these shores any coal or refined oil products to any country whatsoever? If we are, to which countries are these exports being made?

Importing and exporting refined products is taking place involving a whole range of nations. For example, we provide most of the refining capacity for Southern Ireland. We import a whole range of products from European countries and export a whole range of products to those countries. These exports involve tiny quantities of coal. If these exports, which involve only a minor figure, did not take place it would mean that contracts entered into by the National Coal Board would be broken. I have control over exports of oil, and the oil companies make weekly declarations of their intentions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anxiety among hon. Members on both sides of the House and the deep frustration in the country regarding the haphazard way in which distribution of fuel is being dealt with? Is he further aware that in some areas this type of distribution of fuel is causing frustration of a critical kind? Will he not at least say that the facts should be brought to the House by way of a statement this week, and will he consult the Leader of the House about the order of this week's business and express a personal view that a debate this evening on the landscaping of New Palace Yard—

Order. We shall come to the debate on New Palace Yard later.

The question of business is for the Leader of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there is sufficient fuel oil to deal with the CEGB and the chemical industry? Will he give an indication of the naphtha position? Can he estimate what will be the world price of crude oil and what price the United Kingdom will have to pay?

The situation in terms of fuel oil provides ground for most anxiety, partly due to the CEGB's decision to make oil reductions. The total position on fuel oil is worse than on almost every other product. The stock situation is such that, provided we can continue the present cuts in the CEGB, these will enable us to continue at the present level. The naphtha situation can be changed dramatically by one major import. Recently a substantial import came from the Gulf which eased the situation, but there is one aspect of naphtha which is causing me some concern, and that is its use in the gas industry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not merely the Press and Members of Parliament who are critical of him? There is also evidence that the CBI and trade unions feel that he is not being candid and is not telling people the facts. All we are seeking is more information from him. Can he say, for example, what degree of control he exercises over the oil companies? Can he say something about the responsibility for controlling the price of petrol, especially as the Price Commission now appears to contradict itself daily, and as in any case the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act has given back the power of control to the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman also share with the House, industry and the public his assessment of the short-term and mid-term economic prospects?

No one will expect me to reply to all those questions. The last one alone is a subject for a major speech. The right hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that I nave taken powers which enable me to control the price at both retail and distribution levels. The matter of price control and the manner in which it will be exercised is being examined urgently by the Government in talks with the oil companies. The Price Commission has issued a statement today making its position clear. One of its members made a broadcast in the course of which he made a mistake in saying what the powers were. As for the public feeling of uncertainty about the position and the suggestion of a lack of candour, this is a situation which is complicated and which varies virtually from day to day. In such a situation it is understandable that people regret that there is not some easy graph or set of statistics telling the whole story.

Although I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties, will he bear in mind the special position of the tourist industry, upon which places such as Dorset largely depend, as my own constituents do? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that bookings for the future are being made now, and that the economy of the country may depend on them? It is clear that the Opposition do not understand the seriousness of the situation for holiday areas. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making a special holiday allocation or any other alleviation of the position which may be thought possible?

In his speech on Friday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made it clear that in certain conditions the whole of industry is substantially threatened by the energy situation. This is a situation in which all industries, including the tourist industry, will suffer.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the position in many areas is far more serious than he appears to appreciate? Is he aware that many farmers are suffering considerable difficulties at present? Is he aware also that working to a formula based on last year's supplies does not cover new entrants to the agriculture industry, those farmers who have moved from one area to another in the past year, or those who have expanded their activities in response to Government exhortations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that smaller distributors who normally receive supplies from American-owned companies are running out of supplies, with serious consequences to their customers? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at these problems as a matter of urgency?

These are problems which are bound to occur when an across-the-board cut is suddenly imposed. I want to pay tribute to the civil servants in my Department who, together with certain divisions of the oil companies, have dealt with hundreds of such problems effectively in the past few weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of specific cases and will let me have details, I shall see that they are tackled straight away.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current level of usable oil stocks in the United Kingdom; and how this compares with one week earlier.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the price, supply, consumption and stocks of oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation with regard to oil supplies within and on the way to the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the distribution of petrol supplies throughout the country.

Deliveries of crude oil to the United Kingdom last month were much as expected before the crisis. This month the oil companies expect a shortfall of about 15 per cent. and a reduction in imports of oil products. To meet the expected situation, deliveries to users have, in general, been reduced by 10 per cent. compared with last year, and other economy measures have been introduced. Stocks overall remain reasonably satisfactory so far. Prices of petroleum products must inevitably rise in the near future, following the big increases in crude oil prices imposed by the oil producers in October.

Will my right hon. Friend be a little more precise about the level of stocks? Is he aware that my Question referred to the extent of usable stocks as well? Will he give an answer on that point? Will he give a more precise indication of the current level of stocks?

It is difficult to give an answer about usable stocks, because the only figures that I have are of stocks held by the oil companies. The extent to which some of those stocks have declined in certain areas may mean that there are now stocks in industry as opposed to the oil companies. I can obtain no accurate figures, day by day or week by week, of stocks held by firms and industry throughout the country. Overall, the current stock trend has been in line with the seasonal fluctuation that would be normal at this time of the year with comparable shifts in stocks from the oil companies to people's petrol tanks and to individual firms.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many power stations previously burning coal are now being converted to oil? Will he supply the House with the list of such stations?

shall do so, but I cannot at the present time.

Does it presently remain the view of my right hon. Friend that supplies and consumption of stocks of fuel oil and naphtha are sufficient both immediately and in prospect to sustain the Government's growth target of 3½ per cent., or has he joined the growing army of economic realists, among whom I include myself, who believe otherwise?

I know that my hon. Friend has always included himself in that category. Growth depends on future events that even my hon. Friend, with the realism that he brings to the subject, cannot accurately predict.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation must inevitably get worse? If so, is it not criminally incompetent of the Government not to use the powers that the Minister admits he now has to control the prices of all petroleum products? Has not the time now arrived for him to introduce some rationing to avoid what is becoming a racket throughout the distributive trade?

As I said last week, the introduction of rationing does not prevent rackets. Previous rationing schemes illustrate that there are plenty of rackets.

If it is true that, generally speaking, there are adequate supplies of petrol in the country and that the problem is aggravated by panic-stricken motorists topping up at every opportunity, would not the answer be that, instead of most garages refusing to give more than £1 worth of petrol, my right hon. Friend should insist that they give not less than £2 worth, or five gallons, with the obvious exception of small tank capacity vehicles?

I do not think that we could make that kind of approach by Government regulation and impose it on everybody in the country. Some garages have endeavoured to use that method to frighten off people who were just topping up. The position throughout the country, checked at lunchtime today, is very different and much improved compared with a week ago.

Is it not clear, in view of the price of oil to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that the price of coal is extraordinarily competitive and that the Government are, for the first time within the last 20 years, able to pay the miners a considerable increase because the production of coal is so profitable at the present time? Why do not the Government stop this nonsense which arises from phase 3, get down to realities and pay the miners what they ought to be paid?

It is partly because of that situation that the Government decided, 12 months ago, to introduce the Coal Industry Act and are now offering the miners a substantial increase.

Will my right hon. Friend say how much usable oil is being exported from this country? Will he conduct an investigation into the distribution practices of oil companies, which seem to be supplying less oil than they have received?

If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that, I shall be grateful if he will let me have it. In the earlier stages there was a period of uncertainty as to future allocation, when a number of distributors decided to keep their stocks for themselves. With regard to comments on the M6 and the non-availability of diesel oil, there is plenty of diesel oil on the M6, but it was not being sold, perhaps for that sort of reason. But the position has now substantially improved. As for exports, as a Department we are keeping a daily check with the oil companies on the various forms of oil exports, and there are considerable oil imports too.

If the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to introduce rationing, will he indicate that certain groups in the community should be given priority? I refer, for example, to users of diesel oil for taking children to school and workmen to work, as well as members of the medical profession who find it wasteful of their time to queue. Will he give an assurance that the price which has been bandied about, of possibly 50p for a gallon of oil, will not be charged unless it is justified?

I can tell the hon. Lady that there will be price increases due to a world-wide increase in the cost of crude oil. These will be regulated so that profiteering will not take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what extra impetus the fuel oil shortage has given to his Department's search for alternative sources of energy; and if he will step up research on the use of Great Britain's tidal estuaries for the generation of electricity, particularly the Severn Estuary.

It has confirmed the correctness of the important decisions taken this year and last to make better use of our indigenous fuel resources. Great Britain's tidal estuaries offer only limited scope as power sources. Two schemes for a Severn barrage have been considered recently, but did not appear economically attractive.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the circumstances surrounding the rapid rise in the price of oil may make previously unattractive schemes a lot more attractive? Is he aware that one of the schemes for the barrage is estimated to be able to produce 50 per cent. of the nation's electricity requirements? Would not this be a good time to spend a few hundred thousand pounds on setting up a hydrological survey of one of the schemes, so that we can establish facts which are not well known?

Price comparisons with oil and other sources of energy have changed dramatically. However, the alternative for this country in the longer term is nuclear energy. The cost per unit generated on the best barrage scheme available would be two and a half times that of an advanced nuclear reactor.

Whereas it is true that when last looked at, in the middle 1960s, the Solway barrage was economically unattractive, is the Secretary of State aware that some people now seriously think that it might be economically attractive?

I shall look specifically at that scheme to see whether that is so, but my advice is that the barrage schemes available to us could not compete with the nuclear potentiality. Obviously I shall check on this specific scheme.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that more resources are devoted not only to finding alternative sources of energy but to making better use of the resources that we have already? For example, will he encourage fluidised combustion in coal-burning stations, since it not only gives a better conversion rate but is advantageous from the point of view of the environment?

I shall consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Central Electricity Generating Board oil-and coal-fired generating plant is at present converting less than 35 per cent. of the thermal value of fuel input into consumable energy.

The latest Annual Report of the Central Electricity Generating Board shows that in 1972–73 96 per cent. of output capacity was operating at a thermal efficiency of less than 35 per cent.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is time we replanned our electricity generating programme with a view to encouraging the construction of more, smaller on-site power stations where waste heat could be converted into useful energy, rather than continuing with a programme of large and remote power stations where 60 per cent. of the fuel input is wasted in the cooling systems and the grid system?

Although I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, I do not think that it would necessarily be acceptable to the House to embark at Question Time upon a fundamental debate on the laws of thermodynamics. However, there are two aspects to my hon. Friend's question. The first is that district heating schemes are under serious consideration. The second is that, none the less, the steam pressure of 2,000 psi at temperatures of over 500 degrees C., which is the standard operation on most CEGB plants, is really quite good.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the meeting held on Friday 23rd November between the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs and representatives of the local authorities to consider the discussion document on consumer advice centres.

Those present generally welcomed my proposals for co-ordinating the network of advice centres and for developing and promoting its corporate identity.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that consumers throughout the country will widely welcome the initiative that he is taking with regard to a national network of consumer advice centres and, equally, the considerable sums of money which the Government are setting apart for this purpose? Was my right hon. and learned Friend really satisfied that the local authority representatives meant to implement the scheme? Was that the case, for example, with regard to the Gloucestershire local authority?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks about the general value of this initiative. My impression, which was clearly formed as a result of that meeting, was that the overwhelming majority of local authorities present attached considerable importance to the expansion of this service and were themselves keen to participate in it, consistent with the resources that they have available.

What advice would a consumer advice centre give to a constituent of mine who bought a washing machine from Crown Point Electrics of Hyde, found that it did not work, sent it back for repair, had it returned, and found that it still did not work and did not even have a lid, bearing in mind that she has not had a single word from Crown Point Electrics about the washing machine?

I confess that it is hardly part of my function, in relation to a Question about advice centres, to answer every query of the hon. Gentleman's about every washing machine in his constituency. The servicing of electrical appliances is one matter to which the Director General of Fair Trading will be directing his attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the situation in the coal industry.

I have nothing to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the debate which took place on 7th December.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how long the Government propose to continue this obstinate and foolish confrontation with the miners and so grossly reduce coal production at a time when other sources of fuel are critically reduced? Is it not obvious that, in view of the rundown in manpower as well as the present dispute, sooner or later the Government must pay the miners much more than the present offer if they are to get them to do work which is dangerous, inconvenient and grossly ill-paid?

The present offer guarantees the miners a substantial improvement in their living standards. It is an offer which also gives them an incentive for further productivity. With all the problems in both energy and counter-inflation, I deeply regret that the miners do not accept the offer and get back to work. [Interruption.]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed—[Interruption.] Has my right hon. Friend noticed—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to put his supplementary question without these sedentary noises.

Has the Secretary of State noticed the CEGB's total energy scheme in which it suggests that for the total good of the country the coal, electricity and gas boards should work together rather than always be rivals?

rose—

Withdraw.

I withdraw what I said about the miners getting back to work. It is purely the overtime ban with which we are concerned, not full-time working.

May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that before Thursday his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will take the initiative to try to break this deadlock? If not, why not?

That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend, who will have to decide what he considers the best way of obtaining a settlement of this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important requirements for a negotiator in an industrial dispute is flexibility? Are not the terms of stage 3 unnecessarily restricting his right hon. Friend's hand in achieving a settlement of this dispute?

No. One of the considerable advantages of stage 3 is that it provides considerable flexibility. Indeed, stage 3 provides the flexibility that enables the miners to have available to them an offer far greater and more generous than most sections of the community can enjoy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest information he has from the receiver-liquidator concerning the prospective payment to shareholders in Rolls-Royce Limited; and if he will make a statement.

The joint liquidators of Rolls-Royce Limited have recently informed creditors and stockholders that there is an estimated potential surplus available for stockholders of just over 40p per £1 stock unit but that this is still subject to a number of uncertainties. The holders of workers' (1955) shares have been repaid at the full par value of their shares.

Quite apart from the reflection that those figures cast on the circumstances of the original bankruptcy, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many workers in the old Rolls-Royce company, and widows and dependants, exchanged workers' shares for ordinary shares at par? Is he also aware that there is something indecent about these people being compensated at no better value than American speculators who bought shares after the crash and now stand to make 4,000 per cent. or more profit on the deal? How much money is going to America under the terms of this payout?

I do not have the answer to that question. The allocation of funds is a matter for the liquidator. He has looked into this matter very carefully. The whole question of distribution is for him and not for the Government. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that he has been able to reach agreement with the clearing banks and accepting houses to enable the workers' shares to be repaid. I understand that no formula has been found, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene to find a formula to discriminate between people holding the same shares, although they happen to be employed by the company, as opposed to outside shareholders.

Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is precisely what was said about the worker shareholders—that no formula could be worked out to help them. These are workers holding ordinary shares.

It was very difficult to find such a formula. It depended on the generosity of others who had legitimate claims on the company forgoing some of their claims. Therefore, it did not affect ordinary creditors or the stockholders at large. It was a decision taken by the banks and clearing houses which made it possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give priority to assisting the Lockheed 1011 TriStar with Rolls-Royce engines in view of its high reliability rate and low noise factor, and its importance to British technology.

The Government have already backed the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine used in this aircraft with massive development support. The British Airways Board has placed a substantial order for the aircraft. The Government will continue to give all appropriate help to the manufacturers in their sales efforts throughout the world.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that if he could give further encouragement to this type of aircraft it would reduce the environmental disadvantage of living in areas where there are airports? Will he also take into account the fact that many people are employed in the engineering industry throughout the country and that nearly every constituency is affected, and that if he does not take action to introduce a stretched version of the aircraft, with a corresponding engine, our technology may be in danger?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in one of the permissions granted by the Secretary of State for the Environment special help was given for the use of the TriStar at Luton because of its quiet engine properties. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the need to encourage quiet engines. As to the development of the engine, the company has now bench-tested the engine to a thrust of 48,000 lbs.

Will my hon. Friend say what discussions are taking place about the fitting of the RB211 in the European airbus?

It is obviously the responsibility of the Rolls-Royce management to pursue openings wherever it can find them. I know that such discussions have taken place between Rolls-Royce and Air Bus Industry, but no specific proposals have been put to me, although I know that those two companies have had discussions with the British Airways Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the facilities which are now available to him to evaluate the designs for oil production platforms.

It is for the operating companies to carry out their own commercial and technical evaluation of alternative designs in the light of the particular conditions at the site where oil is found.

Does the Minister not concede that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is he not aware that there is a growing feeling that a large number of concrete production platforms could be developed in areas of high unemployment if the Government took the initiative to bring the oil companies, the designers and the producers together? Will he not do that small thing and bring these three organisations together to see whether we can have these production platforms built in suitable areas in the United Kingdom?

There have been intensive discussions with all those people about concrete platforms. The hon. Gentleman should remember that of nine steel platforms so far ordered, six have come to this country. There are very few places where there is sufficiently deep water to enable concrete platforms to be constructed. We have commissioned consultants to scour the entire United Kingdom with a view to locating those areas where this would be possible.

Are any steps being taken to acquire or build enormous concrete tanks for oil storage in the North Sea such as those which have been built in Stavanger in Norway, so that we can overcome some of the pipe-laying difficulties?

I do not have a figure to give to my hon. Friend, but I shall certainly notify him if there is a case of that kind. I do not believe that it falls within the present plans of the oil companies.

Does not the Minister accept that these decisions are far too important to be left to oil companies and construction firms? Does he not agree that there is an overwhelming case for commissioning an expert study of platform design to complement the one that has been commissioned on sites, so that we can come to a decision which will be in the national interest?

The study by consultants which we have already announced has also concerned itself with alternative designs, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, ideas about designs for platforms, and particularly for these concrete platforms, are changing very rapidly.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how Her Majesty's Government's cutback of 10 per cent. on oil supplies will affect the bunkering of British shipping and its invisible earnings.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on Friday. Our shipping industry is already taking steps, through reductions in ship speeds and other measures, to cut substantially its consumption of oil fuel. It will not be possible to isolate the effects of the reductions in oil supplies on the industry's invisible earnings because of the other factors involved.

In view of the importance of invisible earnings and the fact that ships serving the United Kingdom need to bunker world-wide, will my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to encourage other countries to follow the example of this country and give priority to bunkers?

I have not thought it necessary to take such positive steps, because no representations have been made to me by the shipping industry that it is necessary. If any evidence of difficulties were brought to my attention I should see what could be done in the circumstances.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the range of activities of merchant and naval ships is so wide that in a period of oil tanker shortage there is a place for determining priorities? Will the Minister give an undertaking that this matter is being examined and that priority will be given to tankers moving oil to this country and ships moving food and other essential supplies?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the statement which I made on Friday I have given priority status to ships involved in trade to and from the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects his Department's investigation into the affairs of Lonrho to be completed.

The inspectors have already done a considerable amount of work. It is not yet possible to say when they will complete their investigation.

Will they investigate the reason why the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was appointed as consultant in September 1971 at a grossly inflated salary, since he could offer only part-time service, and will they investigate also whether there was any connection between his appointment and the fact that in the very same month Mr. Newman, managing director of Lonrho (South Africa), and three other Lonrho directors were arrested in Johannesburg on fraud charges, with hectic efforts being made by the company to secure their release ever since?

I do not know what connection there may or may not be between those matters, or how far the inspectors will think it right to follow up the points made by the hon. Gentleman. They will be conducting a widespread investigation in accordance with their terms of reference under statute.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons are employed in the small firms division of his Department.

Twenty-six. The staff of the small firms information centres—30 in all—are on the strength of the Department's regional offices.

Will some of these people go to Bolton to advise and help some of the small firms which have been writing to me over the past eight or nine months about the total absence of supplies of wood, steel, phenol, Polythene and, now, textiles fibres and yarns? Also, while they are there will they examine another problem which I have raised on other occasions in the House, namely, the anxiety of these firms and some of their suppliers, who say that they must not in any circumstances disclose their names for fear of victimisation by other suppliers or by one of the nationalised corporations?

On the last point, if I understand my hon. Friend aright, I am satisfied that there is no discrimination against small firms on the part of the British Steel Corporation. As regards supplies of steel and other materials, the small firms information centres can put small firms in touch with those who can give them expert advice.

Will the Minister bear in mind that many small firms feel that they are swamped by the administrative expenses of VAT? Does he recognise that with the present and probable future rate of inflation many small firms which are not now covered by VAT will be drawn within the net, and for this reason will the Government alter the threshold figure? Second, how will the Department protect small firms from the EEC proposal, already adopted by the Commission, which, far from raising the threshold figure, would actually lower it?

I shall certainly bear in mind the effect on small firms of any proposal on the scope of VAT, but I must say that I do not find among small firms any hankering after SET.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Great Britain's current balance of trade situation.

The changing terms of trade and the increase in imports of machinery, industrial materials and fuels have resulted in a substantial deficit in our balance of trade.

Is not the prime reason for the expected £2,000 million balance of payments deficit next year the Government's appalling economic policies? Will the Secretary of State now tell us what course he will be urging upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to reverse this situation?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir", and the answer to the second part also is "No, Sir".

Will my right hon. Friend give his estimate of the trend in commodity prices?

think that my hon. Friend will realise that in present circumstances it is impossible to do that. For one thing, if oil prices substantially increase and oil supplies diminish there could be a large reduction in world trade, which could result in a substantial fall in commodity prices. It is, therefore, quite impossible to predict.

But is it not clear that in this matter, as in the oil situation, what the country wants is that the Minister shall tell us the facts—that is all, just the facts—and the best prospects which can be made available to the country as a whole? Although very gloomy estimates are undesirable, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the foolish optimism which he has shown has done, if anything, much more damage than the gloomy forecasts? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that what the Government are ready to tell the special NEDC meeting on 21st December will be made available also to Parliament before it rises for the Christmas Recess?

Having read over the weekend the right hon. Gentleman's confessions of how, taking note of the experts, his Government ran down the coal industry, the railways and other industries, I can understand his concern. If he wants facts I can readily give him one. Imports of industrial materials, fuel and machinery over the first 10 months of this year are running at a total increase of £2,500 million over the same period last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now issue a general direction to the British Steel Corporation not to close any steel works which are capable of becoming modern mini-steel plants.

To give such a direction would be quite unrealistic, and in any case the timing and location of closures are matters which fall within the responsibilities of the British Steel Corporation.

Is it not ridiculous to close steel plants at a time of grave steel shortage? May it not be that the Government's estimates of future steel demand as are as far out as past forecasts of coal demand?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should know that there is no closure taking place now where there is a shortage of supply of any of the products produced by the plant concerned.

Will the Minister take seriously the question put to him with reference to the steel shortage, since what is now proposed could mean serious redundancies in some of the steel producing areas? Will he recognise also that many of the steel pipes for oil are coming from Japan, and if the so-called antiquated mills were brought up to modern requirements the necessary pipes could be produced in this country?

I think that I answered the first point in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). On the second point, the standard of quality of pipe required for use under the North Sea is such that the British Steel Corporation has had great difficulty in matching the specification. However, where the pipeline has come on land in Scotland, the corporation has been immensely successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with British Airways regarding its proposal to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the current fuel situation, he will cause a review to be made of the decision to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities.

I discussed with the group managing director of British Airways on 26th November the action the board proposes to take to ensure that the withdrawal of these facilities does not cause serious inconvenience to passengers. I am satisfied that the board's plans should not result in any significant increase in fuel consumption.

Will the Minister take it that many users of West London Air Terminal, including myself, are quite unimpressed by British Airways' arguments for closing the check-in facilities, and that this view is now shared by the airline users' committee, the recently established consumer body? Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to persuade British Airways to reverse its decision, which may cause considerable discomfort to passengers and congestion at Heathrow?

I have had discussions with the chief executive of British Airways, very much for the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention and particularly in the light of the consumer committee's report. British Airways has announced a number of things which it intends to do to meet the report of the consumer committee. I think that the House will wish to bear in mind also that from the beginning of October the facilities in question were withdrawn from 40 per cent. of passengers using the West London Air Terminal and, so far as my Department is aware, no hardship has arisen.

But is my hon. Friend aware that, when this service is completely withdrawn, many people will have to go by bus and there will be no facilities for their luggage to be taken? In fact, the buses do not have that facility at present. Second, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are to have a new Underground railway out to London Airport, and there are no facilities on the Underground for the carrying of luggage? Will he, therefore, ask those responsible to see that these facilities are made available when the terminal is closed?

I think that my hon. Friend may have misunderstood the nature of the service provided by the buses. There are luggage facilities now. The only issue is whether one checks in one's luggage at the terminal or at Heathrow. The argument is that, as one has to keep specific buses for specific aircraft at present, the buses often run to Heathrow half empty, and it would be easier to provide a regular service at, say, four-minute or 10-minute intervals, without allocating specific buses to specific flights. The other question which my hon. Friend raises is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, and I shall draw it to his attention.

The hon. Gentleman's reply completely ignores widespread representations. Does he realise that two of the arguments put forward by British Airways for the withdrawal of check-in facilities were that there were far more people using their cars to go to Heathrow and that traffic congestion often held up a bus and delayed aircraft? In view of the changed fuel situation, will the hon. Gentleman have further discussions with a view to changing his mind?

I hope that the House will not feel that my reply ignored any representations. I was dealing with points made in some of those representations. As the House knows, 80 per cent. of people using Heathrow now go there by car, and, although there may well be some reduction as a result of the fuel situation, it is not likely that the gap will be closed between those who go by car and those who go by bus. The question is whether the 80 per cent. of passengers who have gone by car should in certain circumstances be delayed by the possibility of some of the 20 per cent. who have gone from the terminal being delayed because a particular bus is held up for a certain time. In view of the difficulties with inter-lining and so on, on balance the argument seems to be that the present proposal of British Airways, with the amendments which it has made, will not in fact cause major inconvenience.

In view of the very powerful case just put by my hon. Friend, will he cause an investigation to be held on the reason why BEA decided to commit public expenditure on this white elephant and how it was that the officials in the Ministry of Civil Aviation decided to approve such a wastage of public capital? Surely it is clear that the thing had no commercial value at all.

This all happened a considerable time ago, and circumstances have no doubt changed dramatically since then, with the ever-increasing proportion of people using their cars to go to Heathrow. However, my hon. Friend's point is most interesting and I shall look into it.

May I suggest on behalf of the consumer that the Minister is going in completely the wrong direction? Surely he is encouraging people to drive to London Airport, where the parking facilities are already overloaded. Will he consider the difficulties facing elderly people, those going on school trips and those who are travelling for the first time?

On reflection, the hon. Lady may not want to use the word "encouraging", because the proportions are now so different that it is inconceivable that any policy we adopted would be likely to change the numbers of cars going to Heathrow. A number of changes have been introduced recently to help the sort of people she referred to. It was already intended that there should be sufficient porters to deal with the luggage problem but, in addition, a full-time supervisor will be on duty, to help people who might suffer in the way that the hon. Member fears. For anyone who suffers the ultimate inconvenience of not catching a plane the airlines have said they will see that such people are either booked on a later plane or that accommodation is provided for them in hotels at Heathrow.

On British Airways' own admission, only 0·4 per cent. of its flights were delayed last year because of passengers being held up between the check-in point at West London and the airport. This year 1 million people have already used the terminal. As it will save only £500,000 to cut out the facility, cannot passengers be surcharged 40p to cover the facility, so that it may continue.

Surely my hon. Friend will ask why no other capital city in the world has this facility provided. In addition, 40 per cent. of the 1·3 million people referred to by my hon. Friend as using the service, finding that the facility has been withdrawn since October, have suffered no inconvenience. Admittedly, on the airline's figures only 0·4 per cent. of the flights are delayed, but where that delay takes place—perhaps because of a breakdown and, therefore, congestion on the M4—the other passengers already on the aircraft suffer the great inconvenience of having to wait, and we must remember the inter-lining communications which follow.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of likely future demand for bicycles during the fuel crisis, he is satisfied that the supply will be adequate.

The industry is at present satisfying demand in this country. Its prospects of continuing to do so depend on the ways in which the supply of its raw materials and the demand for its products are affected by the availability of oil. I shall continue to keep in close touch with the industry.

This is not intended to be a frivolous matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the demand for bicycles has increased substantially over the last three years and export orders continue to increase? Would not this be an appropriate time to encourage the cycle industry to expand? If we did that—perhaps this part of the question might be considered frivolous—and used cycles a little more, would it not be very much to our physical advantage?

The industry has very good prospects but I do not think in the circumstances that it needs any encouragement from me to expand.

Does the Minister see the situation arising in which Ministers will be supplied with bicycles instead of cars? If that situation is expected to arise, will he ensure that they have a fixed gear so that they may continue to back-pedal?

I am sure that whatever the form of locomation we shall make equally impressive progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what would be the expected average weekly earnings for surface workers and underground workers under the National Coal Board's current offer; and how this compares with the equivalent weekly earnings in 1970.

On a comparable basis to the figures used in the Wilberforce Report the expected average earnings under the NCB's current offer, including a productivity agreement, will be £46·50 for surface workers and £49·65 for underground workers. The comparable figures for 1970 were £24·10 on surface and £29·05 underground.

The miners may be asking for more, but is it not clear that they have been treated more generously by this Government—taking account of the Wilberforce settlement and the current offer—than they have ever been treated before? Have they not been treated certainly more generously than most industrial workers? Is it not also true that with allowances and overtime face workers will be earning very nearly £3,000 a year.

What my hon. Friend says is correct because his figures show that, whereas immediately after the Wilberforce settlement in April 1972 the miners' ratio was 1·07 compared with manufacturing industry, if the NCB offer were accepted the ratio would once again be higher than that for manufacturing industries.

Will the Minister try to explain the significance of his remarks? Surely there is something wrong with the financial statistics, because 700 miners are leaving the industry every week. Is it not time the Minister cut out the propaganda and tried, on Thursday, to make a settlement with the miners to get the nation the coal it needs?

The hon. Member should take into account the fact that recruitment is still progressing at a steady rate of between 300 and 350 a week, of which only half are miners returning to the pits. Under all Governments there has been a problem of recruitment at times of prosperity. Things are no different now than at any time in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with bottle manufacturers.

We are in constant touch with the glass manufacturers' federation, which represents glass container manufacturers, about the bottle supply situation, and are urgently considering its representations about fuel oil supplies.

is it not absurd for the situation concerning non-returnable bottles to be allowed to continue when, over Christmas, we might find the essential distribution of milk severely restricted? What does the Minister intend to do about the production of non-returnable bottles?

I bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member. However, she will appreciate that at short notice it is not possible to alter production lines. She must remember that the industry is heavily dependent upon fuel oil.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of glass bottles in the food industry goes far beyond whisky and milk? Will he give an assurance that fuel supplies for the manufacture of glass bottles will be given the utmost priority?

We shall certainly consider carefully the industry's claims for fuel.

What representations are the Government making to the supermarkets to reverse those policies which have deliberately killed the market for returnable bottles? Does the Minister not realise that bottles are not the only form of container and package now becoming scarce? Did he see the report, in The Times Business News today, of panic buying and of suppliers rationing goods to the retailers? What action are the Government taking now to ensure a continuity of supplies of tinned and bottled foodstuffs to the shops?

The hon. Gentleman goes a good deal wider than the Question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher). With regard to glass manufacturers, we are considering the specific point which the hon. Gentleman raises.