asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in assessing the prospects for generating electricity from sea waves.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that Great Britain's wave energy research is proceeding fast enough to ensure that the United Kingdom is in a position to gain from this potential source of power.

Results so far in the wave energy programme suggest that costs will be higher, and the quantities of energy obtained smaller, than initially estimated. There are grounds for believing that improvements can be made, and present research is being concentrated on the areas of design which will be most important in doing this. I am satisfied that work on this new technology is being pursued as fast as is practicable, and intend to keep progress under review in the light of advice from the advisory council for research and development.

As Britain leads the world in research into wave energy, which experts estimate could produce a substantial proportion of our electricity requirements at today's levels—say, 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.—and as in the next century the costs of coal and oil may increase faster than the cost of energy from this new source, should we not go flat out towards producing it?

With my very limited experience in the subject, and knowing my hon. Friend's experience as author of a specific report on wave power for the Western European Union, obviously I listen carefully to what he says. On the basis of the limited advice so far received from the ACRD, the Department is very conscious of the importance of wave power. All that can be done technically so far has been done and is being pursued. We shall certainly watch the matter, however.

Does that reply take into account the experiments conducted at Strangford Lough, and will they be continued?

I am not personally aware of the details. I shall pursue the matter immediately and come back on it at a later date.

What is the revision of costs now being made? What is the scale of the change in estimates from those that were made before?

Clearly the hon. Gentleman would not want me to go into too much detail. The original suggestion was that we were talking about considerably lower costs than suggested by the initial technical estimates which now put the figure at about 20p to 50p per kilowatt hour. It is suggested that, with further engineering work, that figure might ultimately be brought down to the range of 5p to 10p per kilowatt hour. It is on that basis that studies will be pursued.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding alternative sources of energy.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have yet discussed this specific topic within the Community forum. A Council of Research Ministers is planned for 27 June, where a Commission proposal for a second four-year energy research and development programme, mainly on alternative energies and energy conservation, is likely to be considered.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better for the member countries of the EEC to pool their resources in this research rather than have individual countries pursuing it, with the inevitable duplication that that involves?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Given the scale of money involved and the distance of the likely returns from these projects, this is an area where it makes sense for individual countries to pool their resources.

Can the Minister give the current figures for the proportion of the research and development budget of his Department which is being spent on research into alternative sources and conservation, and say how it compares with the proportion being spent on research into nuclear power?

There is a substantial difference. In the EEC context, we have provisionally allocated £15·7 million over three or four years to research and development. These amounts will be increased as progress justifies. The current energy research and development programme of the Community itself amounts to 59 million European units of account for the four years ending 30 June 1979.

Will my hon. Friend give priority to research into the development of the electric motor car?

That subject falls within the Department, although not specifically within the matters which it is at present intended to discuss at the Council of Research Ministers. But I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that it is a subject into which a lot of research is being done by the industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman not get too obsessive about putting all our energy into these programmes through the European Economic Community? Is he aware that there are many forms of alternative energy which are especially applicable in Britain, and that the research for them in many ways is better done here, where we know our needs, than in Europe, where they may not focus on our real needs?

My hon. Friend explained earlier that there is a national programme of research into alternative sources of energy. In this question, we are discussing a few specific areas where we have decided to pool resources. Obviously, care is taken to see that these research programmes are complementary to national programmes and do not merely duplicate them.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the interests of energy storage are not lost sight of in this work with our EEC partners, since they form a vital part of the future success of alternative sources of energy?

This is a matter which is being reviewed in our national programme. I shall see whether it is one which can also be considered in the Community collaboration.

asked the secretary of state for Energy what steps he is taking to encourage the extraction of oil and chemicals from coal.

asked the secretary of state for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the two United Kingdom projects involved in the extraction of oil and chemicals from coal.

A Government-aided consultancy study for the design of two National Coal Board pilot plants to extract oil and chemicals from coal began in April this year.

But in view of changing economics, is it not time rapidly to speed up this development and move from research into production? If we are moving into the production stage, will the hon. Gentleman favourably consider areas such as Cannock Chase which are on the borders of the growing Midlands coalfield?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall from previous years that the location will be a matter for the NCB, which obviously is considering a number of sites and hopes to reach a decision this summer. Our advice so far suggests that there is no lack of interest and concern about this vital project, which will have our urgent attention. However, there seems to be nothing specific which can be done at this stage to quicken the process.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the process of extracting oil from coal now ranks in importance with the development of the silicon chip? Will he assure the House that in any public expenditure cuts the oil-from-coal technology will be left untouched?

I hope that I may be permitted to say how much I recognise the responsibility of following in office the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) after all his work, not only in this area but in the coal industry as well. Recognising that work, I can assure him that the Government will support the pilot plant design studies, bearing in mind the vital importance of those developments for our country.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many years ago we were making oil from coal? The process is well known; it is all a question of relative economics.

I am aware of what was going on in the 1930s and 1940s. It is always difficult to give a rule of thumb, but one thing which is coming from the study by the NCB is more specific detail; if one can today assume processing costs of about $15 to $20 a barrel and fuel costs, at £30 a ton production, of about $20 to $25 a barrel, we are already talking in terms of a not-too-distant possibility of price of $35 to $45 a barrel for synthetic crude, so it is more than in the hereafter.

Remembering that about £300 million worth of natural gas will be flared in the North Sea this year, will the Minister give attention to the commercial possibilities of producing chemical by-products from natural and petroleum gases and making sure that this valuable product is not wasted in that way?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the research being done at Stoke Orchard. I shall give this as much attention as the other areas, but it is clear that the scientific development in NCB laboratories is far in advance of that of many of our competitor nations.

asked the secretary of state for Energy when he expects next to meet his colleagues in the EEC.

asked the secretary of state for Energy when he expect next to meet his colleagues in the EEC.

I shall be meeting my EEC energy colleagues at the next meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers which is presently expected to be on 18 June.

When my right hon. Friend next sees his EEC colleagues, will he press for an across-the-board reduction in oil consumption of about 5 per cent. throughout the Community?

An across-the-board 5 per cent. reduction is already an accepted and agreed target with the EEC Ministers, as it is with the International Energy Agency countries as well. Different national programmes, including our own, are directed at achieving demand restraint and a cut in demand of that order in the present year.

Will my right hon. Friend give a simple and clear assurance that Britain will retain control over her own oil supplies?

Of course, we must see that the needs of British industry and the consumer are met. That is certainly my determination, but we intend to do it in line with our international and EEC obligations. I think that that is the right way forward. I believe that we shall make more progress on that basis than by, as it were, declaring war on the EEC the whole time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explore with the European energy Ministers how they have managed to prevent the oil companies from putting their customers on to allocation while in Britain the oil companies have put their customers on to allocation?

I shall be making a statement on precisely this point later today, if I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, and certainly I shall expand upon it then. But the hon. Member is right. The position which the new Government faced when we came into office on 4 May was very unsatisfactory. It does not meet aims of the kind that I wish to see for British industry and for the British people.

What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with his colleagues in the European Community about making the strongest representations to the Government of the United States, who seem to be following a policy of increasing consumption at home while forcing up the price abroad?

I share the thought behind my hon. Friend's question. I have had discussions with other energy Ministers in the EEC. On behalf of EEC Ministers collectively, in the role of the presidency, the French energy Minister flew to Washington to make the strongest possible representations and to point out the dangers of unilateral action of this kind.

May we take it from the Secretary of State that, in view of his chairmanship of the IEA in Paris 19 or 20 days ago on the subject of coal, he will try to make a major initiative on the Council of Ministers, as his predecessors did, to get a European agreement on coal production?

I should like to make progress in an EEC context on the production of coal. I believe that we stand a better chance, although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands the difficulties, if we start from the proposition that it is in our national interest to work with the EEC rather than against the EEC.

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

I meet the chairman from time to time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure my constituents in Newcastle that, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, it will not be to cancel the orders for the advance gas-cooled reactor power stations at Torness and Heysham, especially the turbine generator orders, which are so important to them and to the power plant industry as a whole?

The approval for the new AGR turbine generators is going forward, and the generating boards are still assessing the tenders for the units. But this is a matter on which the Government's position is still being considered. The long-term health of the suppliers is a matter of importance to the Government, as it must be also to the generating boards.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Dr. Walter Marshall's report on combined heat and power is about to be published, and will he have discussions with the CEGB to ensure that we in this country attempt to stop the disgraceful waste of fuel in our power stations which could be making such a major contribution to solving our energy problems?

I understand that Dr. Marshall's report will be published in the next three months. Thereafter I hope very much that constructive proposals and ideas will develop from it.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets Mr. England, the chairman of the CEGB, will he discuss the Government's plans for the reorganisation of the National Nuclear Corporation—a matter with which the CEGB is vitally concerned?

I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman that these matters are linked closely and that the CEGB is vitally concerned with them. The Government are considering them urgently, and I hope to be able to make a statement on our decisions in the next few months, because these are crucial matters for the long-term health of our energy policy.

Will my right hon. Friend remember how much more efficient it is to concentrate nuclear power generation at places such as Heysham where the expertise is already established?

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the position which she has acquired over the weekend as a result of the outcome of the elections? I accept that what she says has great validity, and certainly I shall bear it in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy, in the light of the restrictions which some suppliers have imposed on the delivery of petrol to garages, if he will make a statement on the availability of oil fuels.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Great Britain does not suffer from an energy shortage, in view of the current uncertainties over the future of world oil supplies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the supply situation for petroleum products.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the supply position of petroleum products; and if he will make a statement.

The matters raised in these questions will be dealt with in a statement which, with permission, I will be seeking to make to the House this afternoon.

rose—

If the hon. Members whose questions are being answered will wait, I shall call them when the statement is made.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement setting out the Government's policy on energy conservation.

We shall pursue a vigorous policy to promote greater energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy. I am particularly concerned that the public sector should set an example in the drive for more economical use of energy.

While welcoming that statement most warmly, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that it will be the practice of this Government to make the Secretary of State personally responsible for giving a lead in the matter of energy conservation? Does my hon. Friend accept that the maximum efficiency of energy use is really the best principle for the application of energy saving?

Whichever figures one takes, whether 14, 15 or 30 per cent., as some optimists suggest, for energy conservation by the end of the century, there is no question but that there is considerable scope in this area. My right hon. Friend made quite clear last week the importance that the Government attach to energy conservation when he took the lead in this area and decided that the Secretary of State would lead on energy conservation matters.

If the right hon. Gentleman is leading on energy conservation matters, can he inform the House whether it is his intention to reduce speed limits in order to conserve energy?

Basically we are examining all aspects of energy conservation, as I am sure the hon. Member will recall from the statement of my right hon. Friend last week. A reduction in speed limits, would have only a very minor short term effect in view of all the bureaucratic involvement that might be associated with it. I should have thought, from experience, that the compliance feature attached to it would make one question very seriously the relative degree of importance of introducing such a limit at this time.

If the Government really wish to set a good example in the public sector on energy conservation, will the Minister initiate immediate inquiries and find out why the central heating system is on today in the Palace of Westminster?

I should be happy to pursue that point, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in his statement on energy conservation last week my right hon. Friend announced the continuation of the ministerial committee that was established under the previous Government. My right hon. Friend has asked me particularly to monitor the results from the public sector.

Does the statement mean that the passage of measures which were in preparation under the Labour Administration on road transport, on building regulations and for industry will be followed by this Government? Does it also mean that there will be no public expenditure cuts affecting resources for energy conservation policy?

There is no question but that the measures of the previous Government are still being examined. Our initial conclusions were that they were not sufficient and that it was necessary to reexamine this whole area and have the lead of the Secretary of State in doing so. That process is still under review. We are continuing to do it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the current shortage of diesel fuel and paraffin; and if he will make a statement.

I have been approached by a number of representative organisations such as the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and the British Hardware Association, as well as by a number of individual consumers. I have undertaken to help sort out problems where there may be some special role for Government, but there is no getting away from the basic shortfall in supply which is something to which all consumers have to adapt.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he take account of the fact that in the outlying regions such as the South-West many firms and industries seem to be experiencing up to 25 per cent. cuts in the supply of diesel fuel and paraffin? Will he try to ensure that the distributive companies in this country give a fair distribution of fuel to these areas?

Yes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are doing this. Both my right hon. Friend and I have had meetings with the petroleum industry advisory committee and we are keeping in very close contact with the industry. Our Department is monitoring the situation in various parts of the country. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the supply is spread evenly and that no specific area suffers more than any other.

The Minister said that consumers should adapt, but is it sensible, when everyone wishes to conserve energy, for British Rail allocations to be liable to be cut when people are being encouraged to use public transport more? Does he agree that his statement should not apply to British Rail?

The public services will be required to make economies just as economies are required in other areas. I understand that the British Rail services which are to be reduced are not operating in peak hours.

Is the Minister aware that the uneven distribution of diesel fuel applies in Northumberland as well? Why does he not reactivate the kind of regional organisation that was used during recent emergencies so that the difficulties, when they arise, can be handled more quickly by his Department?

Each case is being carefully monitored by my Department, which is intervening as and where necessary. However, we do not believe that direct intervention by the Government will make petrol more readily available. That is why we have decided that nonintervention is likely to be the best answer in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the United Kingdom to be self-sufficient in oil.

I expect North Sea oil production will reach the same volume in 1980 as United Kingdom oil consumption. However, imports will still be required of grades of oil not available from the North Sea.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when we produce enough oil for our own consumption, we shall retain enough of it so that we do not become the only net oil exporter in the world with oil shortages?

The policies which will be followed at that time will be monitored carefully by the Government. At present, many of the contracts entered into were engaged upon some time ago. Obviously these will be reviewed in the future.

Would not the Minister agree that the question of self-sufficiency is a bit of an illusion as we have to import the heavier oils? Does this not involve a problem of presentation if the public fail to appreciate the need for restraint when we have an abundance of oil available from the North Sea?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Self-sufficiency can only be maintained by means of swaps. Since the North Sea oil is the light end of the barrel, there will always be a requirement for certain imports of heavier Middle Eastern oil in order that the refining model may be followed.

Does the Minister not think it lunatic that oil will be exported during the 1980s whereas there will be a shortfall of about 50 per cent. in the 1990s, when the United Kingdom will be importing oil which may be difficult to obtain and very much more expensive? Does he not think that the Government should try to change the policies which have been in force?

The latest estimate of oil production in 1980 is between 90 million and 110 million tons. It is unlikely that Britain will remain self-sufficient after the 1990s, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's estimate is accurate.

Why should the French, who have no oil resources, seemingly have enough oil for their inhabitants, while we in this country have to go short? Can the Minister explain why the Conservatives are now suggesting that Government intervention is needed to resolve this problem instead of allowing free market forces to operate? Or is that what he is trying to tell us now?

The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what he reads in the press. It is certainly not the position that this Government are advocating intervention. Quite the contrary. We have laid down certain guidelines for oil companies, consumers and distributors. At present, these are working without too much difficulty. We are confident that our position in this matter will ultimately prove successful.

Will the Minister consider incorporating oil in the common agricultural policy to ensure that there is always a surplus?

No doubt the whole question of oil will be related to other questions within the EEC.

Will the Government seriously consider making an early statement on depletion or conservation policies for oil? We do not want to export enormous amounts of oil in the 1980s and be left with little oil in the 1990s.

The Government are at present carrying out a general review of oil policies. A statement in accordance with their findings will be made in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he proposes to ensure that those urban and rural areas currently without a gas supply have one provided to give them parity with the majority of United Kingdom citizens.

I am satisfied that the British Gas Corporation meets its statutory obligation with regard to the supply of gas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that about a quarter of the population of this country does not have a gas supply and that many of those who are deprived live in villages near large urban areas? Does he not think, in view of the fuel crisis, that the gas industry should be playing a much more significant part in providing alternative sources of energy, particularly for heating?

I am aware of the position. Under the Gas Act 1972 the Gas Corporation has a statutory duty to supply gas on request only to any premises within 25 yards of the gas main currently in use. The position on electricity is different. As my hon. Friend will know, the cost of a gas main is considerably more than that of an electricity main. In deciding whether to ask people for a contribution to link them to the gas main gas boards have to take into account both the capital cost and the revenue that might arise from such sales.

Is the Minister aware that the responsibilities of the British Gas Corporation do not extend to all parts of the United Kingdom to which this question refers? Will it be the policy of Her Majesty's Government that all parts of the United Kingdom should be considered on the same basis regarding access to sources of natural gas?

I am aware of that problem. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the problem is a longstanding one, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is considering.

Does my hon. Friend accept that an important factor in the choice of fuels is the provision of chimneys or flues in housing? Will he pursue a policy of persuading local authorities to provide chimneys in as much housing as possible?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that this matter will be carefully studied by my hon. Friend who has particular responsibility for conservation and conservation standards in public buildings.

In view of the high cost of providing gas mains compared with the cost of connecting other fuels, would it not make for fair competition between different fuels if there was a policy of grants and subsidies to provide connection to gas supplies?

I do not believe that grants and subsidies would make for fair competition. The profits of the Gas Corporation contribute to the national interest both by tax revenue and by reductions in Government borrowing.

Given the availability and competitive position of gas, the further constraints on oil supply and the fact, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) pointed out, that large areas of the country have no gas supply, would it not be fair to those consumers if the Government reviewed the provisions of the Gas Act 1972?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the management of the Gas Corporation is anxious to maximise its share of the market. The management has every reason to want to do so. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), in deciding whether someone should or should not be connected to the main, the management balances the cost with the revenue that is expected. There is every competitive incentive to the Gas Corporation which does not need subsidies suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the capacity of the British oil refining industry to refine North Sea oil.

The capacity of the British oil refining industry is more than sufficient to refine our current North Sea production. However, this would not be the cheapest way of meeting our demand for refined products, nor, because of the composition of North Sea oil, could it supply all of them. That is why we use a mixture of indigenous and imported crudes. The economics of British refining will be improved by current investment in plant to convert some less valuable heavy products into more valuable lighter products such as petrol.

Have the Government any specific measures in mind to encourage the oil industry to increase its refining capacity to provide more North Sea oil in this country?

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The most important point of all is to increase confidence in the industry and this, by future Conservative policies, we hope to do.

Will the Minister state what is Government policy towards the construction of independently operated oil refineries such as that proposed at Nigg Bay?

The Government have not taken any view on such a subject but would obviously consider every issue on its merits.

While dealing with refining, will the Minister say whether he or the Secretary of State have been able to obtain assurances from the international oil companies that they are not cutting supplies of crude oil into British refineries by more than 5 per cent.?

My right hon. Friend has had regular meetings with representatives of the major oil companies, and I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will arrange to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the future development of the Stirlingshire-Clackmannan coalfield.

The National Coal Board is still appraising these reserves, and it will be some time before it can come to a conclusion.

In view of the estimated 400 million tons of coal reserves in the Stirlingshire and Clackmannan coal basin, will the Minister consider supporting the proposal that these reserves should be used to feed a new or refurbished power station at Kincardine, which would help to ensure better employment prospects for miners at Polmaise colliery and elsewhere? Does he accept that what is required is public investment in the coal industry as a planned public enterprise rather than the crazy laissez faire economic theories recently expounded by the Secretary of State for Industry?

The hon. Member will be aware that only three boreholes have so far been drilled; one is still to be drilled. I shall of course draw his particular geological knowledge to the attention of the chairman of the National Coal Board when I meet him tomorrow morning to illustrate his views on the degree to which there are reserves. However, it is premature. We have still not had the details of the possibility of the reserves. When we do, we shall bring the issue forward very quickly.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that when he meets the chairman of the NCB he will discuss the expansion, not the contraction, of the coal industry? Did the Minister see the report of the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment, winding up one day's debate on the Queen's Speech, when he prayed in aid a quotation from Ernest Bevin: "Give me 200 million tons of coal and I will give you a foreign policy."? Is this a forerunner of the Government's policy—expanding to a target of 200 million tons?

With all his experience in the coal industry, the hon. Gentleman will not want me to deprive my hon. Friends of his later comments on "Plan for Coal". Suffice it to say at this moment that when I meet the chairman of the NCB tomorrow, as I did with Mr. Gormley this morning, we shall be concerning ourselves in detail with the exciting prospects in our coal industry and the real reserves of coal in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects next to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board frequently. I have also met the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. As I have told both of them, a competitive and efficient coal industry has an important part to play in meeting future energy demand. I propose continuing with the tripartite machinery and to arrange a meeting soon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the 200 million tons of coal per annum referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will be the target for the new Tory Government? Will he also tell Derek Ezra when he meets him next that he will allow the trade unions involved in the mining industry freely to negotiate their wage increases on the basis of the £80 a week extra that Derek Ezra got last week?

Pay negotiations are a matter for the NCB and the NUM. Guaranteeing targets so far ahead as suggested is hazardous at any time, but the Government believe that an efficient and competitive coal industry has an important role to play in meeting future energy demands and that the objectives planned for coal investment, which point in the direction the hon. Gentleman mentions are right and that we should work towards them.

After his initial examination of the prospects of the industry for this year and next, can my right hon. Friend say what he foresees as the percentage increase in productivity this year and next in terms of output per man shift?

I think that we are looking for about 2 per cent., although we hope for more, but obviously we are monitoring the situation closely. Productivity is the key. We need the coal and we should like to see improvements and developments on this front.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be discussing with the chairman of the National Coal Board the future for coal in electricity generation and the future programme for coal-fired power stations? Will he say something about that now and amplify his earlier remarks on the AGRs which were so Delphic that they will cause great concern in my constituency?

I cannot say anything now about coal-fired power stations. I have discussed the question of coalburn with the chairman of the CEGB and the chairman of the NCB. It is our intention that the coalburn plans should head for the 70 million to 80 million tons level which the CEGB is looking for this year. That is the correct target and is part of the opportunity to cut down on oil consumption.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy for which quasi-autonomous national government organisations he is responsible.

Apart from the nationalised energy industries and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, I appoint the members of eight advisory bodies, the full titles of which I will circulate in the Official Report.

I am grateful. Does the right hon. Gentleman favour greater parliamentary scrutiny in this area? Is he one of those Cabinet Ministers who favour the setting-up of a Select Committee related to his Department? Does he favour these quangos being brought within the scope of public audit?

Without committing myself to specific Select Committees—it is hardly my place to do that, for it is a matter for Parliament to decide—I think that the hon. Gentleman knows from experience that I favour closer and greater parliamentary scrutiny and debate of the complex issues which many of these boards are considering.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to meet the general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic and Plumbing Trade Union.

I plan to meet Mr. Chapple on 14 June.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not agree that at this moment the closest possible co-operation is needed with unions involved in the energy-producing industries in an effort to reduce the energy gap? I am sure that he will find among those unions a willingness to work with this Government, providing that the suggestions that the Government make are constructive and for the benefit of the industries and the people.

I agree. I have already met other union leaders in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his attitude to the construction of a pressurised water reactor plant, in the light of the recent incident at Harrisburg.

The full facts about the Harrisburg incident are not yet known, and it would be premature to reach conclusions at this stage. The important thing is that the lessons should be learned and the implications fully assessed when we have the facts. I await the considered views of the nuclear installations inspectorate and the other bodies concerned.

When the Secretary of State reaches those conclusions, will he bear in mind that 16 pressurised water reactor stations in the United States have been closed on safety grounds? Is he aware that 14 separate American studies are being carried out into the Three Mile Island incident, all of which will be published? Can he give the House an assurance that at least one of the four British studies will be published, especially that from the nuclear installations inspectorate?

I shall consider the suitability and timing of publishing all those studies. I believe strongly that these are centrally important matters which should be the subject of full and open debate, otherwise the safety aspect will not receive the attention that it deserves.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the experience of Harrisburg shows that the PWR is not as good a reactor as the American industry made out, and that the British advanced gas-cooled reactor has proved to be better, both in results and reliability, than its American competitors?

I do not wish to draw any firm conclusions until I have studied fully the safety aspects of the Harrisburg incident.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board sent a team of experts to the United States to study the Harrisburg incident? That team has now returned. Will he make its report available to the House in a White Paper or in some other way?

I shall consider that suggestion.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything possible to bring forward the fast-breeder reactor so that we can move into that era of electricity generation which will be of considerable benefit to everybody?

The Government are committed to a full inquiry into the fast-breeder reactor. I am discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the great pressure from industry and the CEGB to introduce the PWR into Britain? Will he resist those pressures until the safety aspects have been examined fully? In the meantime, will the Secretary of State urge upon the CEGB and the industry the further development of the advanced gas-cooled reactor? Will he also urge the industry to develop export markets for this excellent reactor?

I am aware of the recent history of this development, including the position that obtained under the previous Government. The Harrisburg incident imposes a period of reflection. That must be used to clarify and to make a right decision on reactors generally.

Will the Secretary of State inform the Prime Minister that she did great damage by what appeared to be ill-informed comments when she visited a French nuclear establishment last week? Will he tell the Prime Minister that the French chose the nuclear power road because, unlike Britain, they have few indigenous sources of energy? Is the Secretary of State aware that to hint that we are involved in a substantial nuclear power programme is sheer irresponsibility?

I know of the hon. Member's major role in the coal industry, but I think that he has this matter out of perspective. In earlier answers I recognised the central importance of coal to our future energy policy. Beyond that, if we are objective, there is a case for low-cost nuclear energy. I do not see that these need to be rivals. The hon. Member's worries are misplaced. His views about the Prime Minister's observations are ill-founded.

Is there not a case for postponing any moves towards further nuclear reactor installations until these safety aspects are clarified? Is the Secretary of State aware of the strong industrial pressures, notably from GEC, about the installation of PWRs? May we have a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State's sole criterion is safety and that neither market considerations nor the multinationals' influence will be taken into account?

The central concern must be safety. But it is wrong to jump to conclusions before receiving the report from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and seeing some of the other observations and reports. One cannot reach decisions before one has the facts.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on hon. Members' remuneration.

The report on Members' pay from the review body on top salaries is imminent, but has not yet actually been received.

May I declare a formal interest in this question? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to restore hon. Members' salaries to the level that obtained in October 1964?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but I cannot make a comment until we have seen the report.

Since any increase in salaries for hon. Members is bound to be extremely unpopular with the British public, will my right hon. Friend ensure that an announcement about increases is made as soon as possible?

I do not know whether I accept the premise of my hon. Friend's argument. I do not see how his conclusion flows from it. Certainly we shall take action when we have received the report.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake that the House will be allowed to consider the report and to influence the Government if necessary before they come to conclusions about the recommendations in the report?

I shall consider that suggestion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a wide measure of support from all sides of the House for remunerating hon. Members properly, and wide support for him if he takes that step when the time comes?

I am grateful for those remarks.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for consulting Back Benchers about their rights.

As Leader of the House, I shall keep in mind the interests of all hon. Members, and in particular I will do all I can to see that the rights of Back Benchers are respected.

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether, while he is waiting for a new Boyle report, he is prepared to implement the last one? He may recollect that the last one was published before phase 1 of the last incomes policy began, and that we are the only group of people in the United Kingdom who have not been accorded our just rights.

The hon. Member has made his point extremely well. I wish that he had made it more successfully to his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who had responsibility at that time.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to receive the Boyle report?

I am hopeful that it will be received very soon, and in this case my hopes are matched by my expectations.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider the establishment of a Select Committee for London affairs.

The House will soon have an opportunity to consider the general question of our Select Committee structure and the proposals made by the Procedure Committee. I suggest that hon. Members await that debate.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the only chance that a London Member has to initiate a debate about London is to win a prize in Mr. Speaker's raffle for Private Members' motions—a 630-to-one chance? Does he agree that that is an inadequate procedure? May we have an assurance that we shall establish a Select Committee to consider London affairs?

The hon. Member underestimates his own success in this regard. This question, along with the question of other Select Committees, should be considered when we debate the report of the Select Committee on Procedure.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to introduce measures for reforming the House of Commons.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to introduce measures for reforming the House of Commons in the present Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals on the future of Select Committees of the House before the Summer Recess.

As I have previously assured hon. Members, the House will have an early opportunity to debate the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament for the reform of our procedures.

Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that before we reform the House of Commons we must get rid of the House of Lords? Since the right hon. Gentleman is unlikely to recommend that, will he guarantee that the terms of reference of any Select Committee on Procedure will include the proposal that all Members of the House of Commons shall be full-time Members and there shall be no moonlighting on the side?

I am sure that Members of both Houses will have heard the hon. Member's remarks and that they will pay them the attention that they deserve.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give his mind to a mundane but deserving subject—namely, the way in which tickets are allocated to visitors? Did he see the empty seats in the Strangers' Gallery even at three o'clock? Does he know how many hon. Members queue for tickets but cannot get them, and what queues there are outside? We are all guilty of pocketing tickets from time to time and the system does not lead to an efficient allocation of seats.

I will certainly, in view of the hon. Gentleman's representations, look into the whole question.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit about his previous answer? Can he give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to decide on the structure of Select Committees before the Summer Recess, so that if a new system is agreed, which I hope will happen, we can proceed to implement it from October when the House resumes?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Can my right hon. Friend define "imminent", "soon "and "early"—all of which terms he has used this afternoon—and tell us which comes first?

I think that they come in the ecclesiastical order of precedence, with the greatest at the end.

Will the Chancellor bring forward a proposal to put the register of Members' interests on a statutory basis? Most new hon. Members will have filled in a form recently which is an absolute scandal. It is a farce that the register has not been published. In all equity, the register ought to be put on a statutory basis so that all hon. Members know where they stand and the House can then explain to people outside what the present position is, and so that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not left in the position in which he finds himself. I happen to support his stand on this, but the register ought to be put on a statutory basis.

I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Will my right hon. Friend, within the next week, please, give the House the opportunity of deciding a quite simple matter—that is, the recommendation of the Procedure Committee of a change in the hours of sitting on Fridays—so that this question, which is of great importance to hon. Members whose constituencies are a long way from London, can have the decision taken one way or the other and make their arrangements in their constituencies accordingly?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are 76 recommendations in the report. We have to arrange them in some order of priority. We are following the priority as suggested by the Procedure Committee, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce a question day for London.

I have no such proposals at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply? Is he further aware that the allocation of time in this House for London, although London sends the largest number of Members, has been an utter disgrace under successive Governments? Before he makes a final decision, will he seek the views of the London Members and also the views of industry and commerce in London, which, I can assure him, urgently believe that there is ground for the allocation of a specific question day for London?

And for the East Midlands.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If London were to be treated in a special way, all other regions of the country would be making the same claim. The tradition of this House has long been that Question Time is arranged on a subject basis and not a topographical one.