asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of United Kingdom coal production is purchased for use by nationalised industries.

In 1978 the proportion of the coal produced which was purchased by nationalised industries was 72 per cent.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern felt in the North-East about the continued importation of Australian coking coal by the British Steel Corporation? Will he tell the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to suspend imports until research being carried out by the National Coal Board into Durham 501 coals is completed? Does he not think that the time has arrived when there should be a coal summit attended by Ministers, the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the British Steel Corporation and the National Union of Mineworkers to consider the whole question of coal imports?

The Government are obviously giving careful consideration to the question of coking coal imports and the extent to which this affects two nationalised industries. I would not wish to comment immediately on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a coal summit, but I hear his words. I hope that he will join me in expressing pleasure over the way in which extra stocks from Durham are being moved to the South of Scotland Electricity Board in considerable quanties. To that extent, the Government are apprised of the problem. I repeat that I hear what he says about a coal summit.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to attend an EEC Energy Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects next to met the European Economic Community Energy Ministers.

I expect to meet other EEC Energy Ministers at the next meeting of the Energy Council, which is due to take place this autumn under the Irish presidency.

What action are the Government taking to oppose the Commission's declared intention to abolish the offshore supplies interest relief grant scheme? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that including EEC sub-contractor components would completely contravene the national interest criteria of our own legislation? Or does he intend tamely to accept this unwarrantable intrusion into British industrial policy which will cost this country tens of thousands of jobs?

I am not sure that I accept the rather extravagant estimates of the hon. Gentleman. He has perhaps missed the statement made by the Government. It is our intention, at the end of next March, to end the IRG scheme. That has been announced. The Commission has been informed of our decision. I do not know its views on the matter.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with his European colleagues the impact of oil price rises on the EEC's economy? Will he suggest to them that the OPEC countries might be more concerned or more determined in their attitudes if countries such as Britain stopped increasing tax, such as VAT, on petrol and petroleum products?

We discussed these matters at the Energy Council. To reduce the tax on petroleum products and on petrol would encourage further consumption. A major aim of policy must be to pull back consumption in order to take the tightness out of world markets and to stop huge profits from being transferred to the Arab OPEC monopoly. That is surely what the hon. Gentleman wants. It makes sense to keep on this tax.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is a welcome member of the Energy Council instead of his predecessor? What support will he give to Commissioner Brunner and others to impose a reasonable policy on the United States of America?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have talked with Commissioner Brunner and I have seen him recently. We must all support and encourage sensible measures which will enable the United States to make its contribution, through restrained demand and sensible pricing policies, to relieve the tight situation in world oil supplies that we now face.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any assurances from our EEC partners that they will end export credit facilities for their oil-producing and manufacturing industry? If so, what machinery has he set up to monitor these assurances?

I have had no hard evidence on the kind of arrangements that the hon. Gentleman suggests, and obviously I have looked at these matters carefully in the light of our policies and decisions in this country. I am determined that we should pursue our own national interest. I came to the firm conclusion that the IRG arrangement was poor value for money, although we set it up in 1973, that it had now fulfilled its purpose, and that the sensible aim for British industrial policy was to phase it out next March. That is what we have done and what we intend to do next March.

Will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to raise with his colleagues and with the Commission the need for the closest possible harmonisation with our EEC partners of the control of oil pollution?

Yes, I shall be glad to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board regarding the future of the coal industry in South Wales.

I have already made clear to the chairman the Government's belief in the need for a competitive, efficient coal industry with the capacity to meet longer-term demands. The South Wales coalfield will form part of that industry.

What action does the Minister intend to take regarding the proposals made by the tripartite committee consisting of the NUM, the National Coal Board and the Government, set up by the previous Government to deal with the problems in South Wales? Specifically, what is to be done with the investment in the Phurnacite plant which produces 18 per cent. of the smokeless fuel in Britain, and the closure of the Deep Duffryn pit? Does he realise that there may be a national strike in the near future if something is not done about the latter?

There are more than one or two comments there. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the tape concerning the meeting which is to take place later this week between Mr. Gormley and the NCB. Of course, the tripartite review must be seen within the context of the review of the coal industry as a whole. Equally, I would point out that the Secretary of State has initiated the first of this Government's tripartite meetings, to be held on Thursday of this week. Obviously, that will be an important occasion. On the matter of Phurnacite, since the NCB has not yet submitted its plans, it is premature for the Government to comment.

But, surely, the Minister must be aware of the statement by the chairman of the NCB about Deep Duffryn and also of the statement by the miners at Deep Duffryn that they would have the opportunity to prove themselves if a capital sum were made available for redeveloping part of the pit. The Opposition would welcome that. He must also be aware that much work has been done in the South Wales working party to spotlight the problems of South Wales in relation to capital investment. Surely the Government will want to take up what the working party has said, whether as a Government or within the tripartite arrangements.

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in the coal industry, would want the Government to approach this matter with great care. One would like the review of the industry as a whole completed; I should have thought that that was approaching it in the right way. I would also presume that he would want us to continue the long accepted and proper tradition that colliery closures and the essential and detailed matters concerning specific closures are a matter for negotiation between the NUM and the NCB.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that there is a shortage of anthracite in the United Kingdom and that we are having to import that kind of coal? Is it not true that there are reserves of anthracite coal in South Wales? Therefore, will he ensure that development will take place and that money will be provided for the development of anthracite and other seams in South Wales—and throughout the country—to ensure that this nation can supply the coal it will require in the next two or three decades?

I am sure that all those interested in the future of the coal industry would want investments made that are profitable in the long-term interests of the industry. To the extent that one is aware of the unfulfilled demand for anthracite, that is obviously an important positive, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to let us have just a little more time to consider the report fully. It is crucial to see it in the context of the industry's whole investment programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to meet the chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he will meet the chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

I see Lord Kearton regularly.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at the end of 1978 only 28 per cent. of BNOC's North Sea oil was getting to our filling stations? Does not that fact, coupled with the fact that exploration activity has nearly halved since 1977, confirm that nationalisation does not necessarily prove to be to the benefit of the national interest?

I think my hon. Friend is asking me about the share of United Kingdom continental shelf crude going to British markets. The figure of 28 per cent. is not one that I would wish to confirm as part of the total, but I can tell him that, of the roughly 25 million tonnes being handled this year by BNOC—that is, excluding oil sold back to companies under the terms of some participation agreements—about 45 per cent. is presently expected to be sold to United Kingdom refineries. On the broader issue of BNOC, all its activities and finances are currently being reviewed and I hope to make a statement on the outcome of that review at the appropriate time.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of BNOC, will he point out to him that there is no justification whatsoever for BNOC's role as a Government adviser, nor for its role as a major crude oil marketer? When he makes his statement, will he make that clear?

Those are precisely the matters that the Government are looking at in the review. When I make the statement on the matter, I shall give the Government's conclusions on those propositions.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will look at the future of BNOC from a purely practical and empirical point of view and not on lines of doctrine?

Excessive doctrine is one of the difficulties—the curses, let us say— under which this corporation was born. I agree that it is important to look objectively at the needs of the British people and the British nation as regards oil, free from assertions of dogma about what kind of organisation or institution is the answer.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the review of BNOC is speeded up? Will he bear in mind two considerations—first, that special licence areas should not be granted to BNOC outside normal rounds; second, the fact that royalties are paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is, the Treasury—and not on account of BNOC?

I take note of those detailed points, but they are all matters falling within the scope of the review, and I cannot anticipate my statement on its outcome.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that BNOC, because of its 51 per cent. participation agreement, was able to sell its oil back to Shell, Esso and Texaco on condition that it was retained in the United Kingdom market, and that it was able to negotiate to ensure that the firms' own 49 per cent. was retained in the United Kingdom market? Is he now satisfied, having looked at the figures, that BNOC did everything possible to protect the home market and that it is the export deals made by some other companies which have prejudiced our ability to get hold of North Sea oil?

I can confirm that BNOC has been encouraged to renegotiate some of its contracts in line with a more normal trading pattern and the more sensible price regime which now prevails in the British market than the one which we found when we came to office. [HON. MEMBERS: " Sensible? "] Certainly, because to keep prices and taxes suppressed leads directly to the shortages that we experienced in May. That is a more healthy position. As to being satisfied with the arrangements that have been made both by the major oil companies and by BNOC, which is of course a major oil company, all oil companies—BNOC was no exception—took certain views last year about the development of oil markets which, since they had limited information about what was to come, were overtaken by events. In those events, many oil companies—again, BNOC is no exception—have found difficulties and have had to renegotiate their arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what study he has made of aquapet, mixing petrol with a combination of oxygen and hydrogen, which is claimed to reduce petrol consumption by up to 40 per cent. while increasing power output; what help he is giving to firms pioneering such experiments; and if he will make a statement.

An independent consultant has reported on the " Aquapet " system and Department of Industry experts have carried out tests on the modified engine. These have shown that its application could not lead to energy savings and this is the view of my experts. I am always interested to learn of schemes for energy conservation, but the question of support for the development of more efficient engines is a matter for the Department of Industry.

Why does it not lead to greater energy savings?

It is difficult enough being a politician without being a chemical and industrial expert. I am giving the details as briefly as I can of the view of the independent and outside consultant. The conclusions seem to be clear. They were provided to the inventor. If there is a request for publication, I shall discuss the matter with my officials. But we are dealing with an outside consultant as well as with officials. I can see no reason why such a request should not be put to my officials.

Will the Minister's advisers also examine the new combined alcohol and petrol engines which have been used in California? Surely that is a better use for alcohol than some of the uses to which we put it?

I do not wish to enter into a discussion about what use of alcohol is better for the country. Any such ideas should be examined. Nobody suggests that any one expert opinion is sufficient. Any suggestions made by hon. Members will be pursued.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have had contact with the Warren Spring laboratory will be faintly depressed by what he has said? Is he aware that the laboratory's activities generally revolve round the opinion that if it has invented something it is good and that, if anybody else has, it is not?

I hear my hon. Friend's comments. However, when we employ vast numbers of officials and people with knowledge in this sphere, occasionally we should concern ourselves more rationally with what they say.

Will the Minister ensure that his advisers have no financial connection with the oil industry?

I do not think that question merits an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many extra tons of coal have been produced in the last year as a result of colliery incentive agreements, and whether he is satisfied with present levels of output.

The conditions under which coal is mined are constantly changing and precise comparison of output with what it might have been without the incentive schemes is impossible. Since their introduction, however, the earlier trend of declining productivity and output has been reversed. Nevertheless, the board and the unions are far from satisfied with the present output, and I very much welcome the joint efforts that they are making to improve it.

Do not the generally disappointing results underline how unwise it would be to impose a tax on gas, since that would strengthen the miners' monopoly on the production of coal at a time when production and productivity in the industry appear to be sagging, at increasing cost to the consumer?

The gas industry is under review. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will look more closely at productivity. Those who have more experience than I of the mining industry will be aware that the matter is more complex than the surface figures of output per manshift illustrate. I draw attention to the face output as opposed to the elsewhere below ground output. This reveals a different picture, especially as there has been a more than 10 per cent. increase in face output.

Is the Minister aware that there is a severe shortage of trained face workers in nearly all coalfields? Does he agree that, when the average earnings of a face worker are only £109 a week, the shortage is not likely to be filled by volunteers? What are the Government planning to do about it?

In the brief time that I have held this office and from the visits that I have made to coalfields and training schemes, I have been heartened to see the large numbers of qualified young men of high standard applying for jobs in the industry. But I should be happy to pursue this, given details.

How can increases in miners' pay be justified when there is so little increase in productivity? Will those increases not result in higher unemployment?

With respect, I must remind my hon. Friend that the industry has a pattern of long-term investment decline. Turning out of that decline and the long decline in productivity was a hard task for the industry. Neither the NUM nor the NCB is suggesting that there is cause for satisfaction in the present figures, but there seems to be more cause for hope when we concentrate on the real figures rather than on the surface figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation relating to petrol supplies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current oil supply and stock situation.

There has been little change in the oil supply situation since my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 11 June. Petrol supplies have eased slightly, but there remains a need for all consumers to make every possible economy in their use of oil products.

Is my hon. Friend aware that customers of those filling stations whose contracts with oil companies have expired and have not been renewed are experiencing difficulties, particularly in the less densely populated areas? Can he suggest a solution?

The Department is keeping in close touch with the oil companies and distributors. If my hon. Friend has knowledge of an individual case, I shall investigate it.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that if we are to avoid real long-term oil shortages of American proportions the consumer will have to accept the world price for petrol and the justification for Governments to impose taxation, provided that that taxation is used to trigger off conservation and investment in providing alternative sources of energy which will make us less dependent upon oil in the long term?

My hon. Friend is correct. Conservation must be the first priority. In spite of the recent increases in the price of petrol, in real terms the price is still lower by several pence than it was in 1974.

Is the Minister aware that in three weeks' time millions of industrial workers and their families will be taking their holidays in Scotland, Wales and the West Country? What arrangements is he making to discuss with the oil companies and the distributors a reallocation of supply to take account of that, so that holidays are not spoiled throughout the United Kingdom?

The allocation system operated by the oil companies is based upon the amount of petrol sold in the corresponding month last year. Therefore, the tourist areas will, to some extent, reflect the holiday traffic. The greatest contribution which hon. Members and the media can make is to avoid creating a panic where no real shortage exists.

Is the Minister aware that, due to the complex system operated throughout Britain last year and because supplies are based on 1978 figures, there is a greater outflow in the towns and cities because of cut prices, to the detriment of rural areas? That applies in particular to rural areas in Scotland which rely upon the tourist industry.

The Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the oil companies and representatives of the distributive industry. The suggestions which my hon. Friend makes have been drawn to their attention. I am confident that during the tourist season difficulties will not be experienced to any great extent.

Will the Minister ensure that the Government place advertisements in the national press, and in the popular media in particular, giving assurances to holiday makers? Is he aware that in West Yorkshire holiday bookings are down by about 40 per cent? I believe that that is true everywhere else. Is the Minister aware that many people are losing a lot of brass in mine and other constituencies? Is it not time that people were assured that they can get petrol when they go on holiday this summer?

I am sympthetic to what the hon. Member says. This situation can best be handled by the tourist authorities. Some authorities are already making this their business and advertising that there is plenty of petrol in their area. That is to be commended.

Is it Government policy to encourage ordinary motorists, where possible, to convert in their purchasing from petrol consuming to diesel consuming vehicles? Will the Minister make a statement about the availability of derv to agriculture in rural areas?

The situation is that we encourage them by means of a conservation policy. We must look at the most suitable method. My right hon. Friend will be making known his views on conservation by means of a statement at the appropriate time. On the second point raised by my hon. Friend, this is something to which we will certainly give Further consideration.

Is the Minister aware that his statement at the weekend—made, as I understand it, in the cosy comfort of a Conservative school—that free market pricing is the cure for oil and petrol shortages is nonsense? No reputable fuel economist would agree with him. Is it not time that this Government started to govern and put a stop to the oil companies playing ring-a-ring o' roses with them?

There is no doubt that in the months and years ahead we shall look to the oil companies to make positive investment in the North Sea with some of the money to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We shall do this by encouraging them with proper policies, to be announced shortly, which will try to retrieve the situation we inherited, which was that there was a massive lack of investment in the North Sea over the past two to three years.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to extend the electricity discount scheme to users of other types of fuel.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the operation of the winter fuel discount scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes to continue the electricity discount scheme during the coming winter; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled said in answer to a question in the House on 18 June, the Government have the question of assistance with fuel costs under review against the background of their public expenditure objectives and the need to avoid further complication of the social security system. The Government will make a statement in due course.

Is the Minister aware that many elderly people are particularly concerned about their fuel bills this winter? Will he make a statement soon to allay their anxiety?

The Government are well aware that elderly people are particularly likely to be hard hit by the rising cost of energy. This is a matter we have very much in mind in our review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a statement will be made.

As I understand that the Summer Recess will not end until early November, will the Minister make a statement before we rise for the Summer Recess so that the working poor and the pensioners know what is going to happen next winter? If the Government intend to reintroduce the scheme next winter, will he give the House an assurance now that he will not allow the sharp practice occurring in my constituency by the Midlands Electricity Board of bringing forward meter readings? In that context, I thank the Minister on behalf of my constituents for the action he took following my Adjournment debate on 16 May.

Of course, the Government appreciate the urgency of the matter and the need for a statement to be made at the earliest opportunity. I hope that one will be made before the House goes into recess. It is not right, however, for the hon. Gentleman to describe what happened as " sharp practice ". The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that I and the officials investigated the matter that he brought to our attention and that we were able to get a rebate for his constituents.

Is the Minister aware that the policy of rationing fuel by means of high prices causes tremendous hardship to pensioners and other poor families? Does he accept that the electricity discount scheme, welcome though it is, does not help a great many families in need? What steps is he taking to co-ordinate Government policy to ensure that there is a genuine attack on this problem of fuel poverty so that even the poorest families can afford adequate heating for their homes?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says concerning rationing by price, but there are many disadvantages to rationing by other means. The system of open rationing and allocations that he seems to advocate will not ensure that help goes to the most needy. He points out various disadvantages in the discount scheme and those are precisely the factors that we are bearing in mind in our review of the scheme. My hon. Friends and I are in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security all the time about this very important question.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that it would probably be fairer to all pensioners, regardless of the type of fuel they use, if such sums of money as were available were to be given for insulation, or for the installation of more efficient appliances, rather than for subsidising the consumption of electricity?

I note what my hon. Friend says. There are more competing claims on public expenditure and obviously energy conservation is of great importance.

The Minister is aware that we have had a rent rebate system in this country for many years. In his statement will he announce the establishment of a fuel rebate system? Is he aware that many pensioners and poor people in rural areas will have trouble in paying for the fuel for their Aga cookers and that many pensioners who rely on paraffin will not be able to obtain supplies this winter? Will the Minister take action before the House rises at the end of July to let those people know what the situation will be?

I have already said that we are considering the whole question not just of the discount scheme but of fuel costs and assistance with those costs. We are well aware of the problems facing elderly people and others in rural areas and this has been taken into account in our uprating of benefits. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a full statement will be made.

Does the Minister agree that all forms of concession that allow one section of the community to get something below the market price can be paid for only by the rest of the community? Does he recognise that that is, in effect, a redistribution of wealth and that this Government were not elected to bring that about?

My hon. Friend is quite right. These schemes have to be paid for out of public expenditure. I said in reply to the first question that we have very much in mind the matter of public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further discussions he has had with the oil companies to ensure an adequate and equitable supply of domestic heating oil for the coming winter.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are having regular discussions with the oil industry on all aspects of the supply of all major oil products. On present indications, a 5 per cent. saving in the use of oil should be sufficient to ensure that supplies this winter are adequate to meet demand.

Will the Minister point out to the oil companies that domestic heating oil is used primarily in rural areas and on some major council estates? Is it not the case that this is the one area of oil consumption where there is no alternative source? Will the Minister take on board the point that domestic consumers would rather see a cut in the other uses of oil, such as petrol, than in heating oil where they have no other choice if it is a tough winter?

This is a very important point which my right hon. Friend and I have discussed with the oil companies. Though it is not quite of such importance in mid-summer, we have emphasised to the oil companies the importance of this issue as autumn approaches.

Will the hon. Gentleman look particularly at the problem of paraffin and accept from me that his recent statement—that the price of paraffin is to be allowed to shoot upwards—will cause great consternation among pensioners and others on low incomes who depend on paraffin?

It is very much preferable to there not being any paraffin available, which was the danger if we did not allow that to happen.

Can the Minister say how, if we are to have a 5 per cent. reduction in supplies, some of the individual companies—which have a monopoly in certain areas—are 20 per cent. ahead on fuel supplies? What powers does the Minister have to make the oil companies share their fuel?

I accept that the 5 per cent. shortage has not been experienced across the board. However, by means of negotiation this has been overcome to a very large extent. The regular meetings that we have had with the Petroleum Industry Advisory Committee and with certain distributors have helped. We shall continue to keep a close watch on the situation so that no area has to go without fuel.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now publish the Marshall report on combined heat and power.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish Dr. Walter Marshall's report on combined heat and electrical power generation.

I am arranging for the report of the combined heat and power group and an associated study of " Heat Loads in British Cities " to be published as energy papers later this month. Other supporting studies will be made available to the public at the same time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome that announcement and urge him to go further quickly and initiate a full-scale demonstration project of this very promising technology? Will he look into the possiblity of getting some funds from EEC sources to meet the cost of that demonstration project since there is reason to believe that these might be forthcoming?

I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in the subject, and I can assure him that the report raises major issues. Since the subject has been five years in the melting-pot, my hon. Friend will not wish me to comment until the Government have had time to make a proper statement on the report.

Is the Minister aware that power stations waste a great deal of energy? Is he aware that over 60 per cent. of it goes up into the atmosphere? Does he realise that this does not happen in most European countries where waste heat is harnessed and used in combined heat and power schemes? Will he make a statement on the Government's attitude to combined heat and power schemes in this country? Will he take the opportunity offered by the Summer Recess to visit those countries in Europe where these schemes are operated so that he may see how efficiently they are run?

Such an invitation is almost impossible to resist after two months in office. I can reassure the hon. Member, however, that in my first week in office I visited the Hannessari B combined heat and power station in Helsinki. I had the opportunity to examine the system in operation before receiving the Marshall report. Since the subject has been under study for five years I imagine that no hon. Member would want us to rush a judgment after two months. However, we shall study the matter, and publication of the report will be made, with a press conference, on 26 July.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal reason why combined heat and power is so little used in this country compared with other European countries, and why we are bottom of the league, is that we have a nationalised monopoly utility in electricity that has constantly prevented the development of combined heat and power in partnership with industry and local authorities?

I think that we should avoid decrying too much our efforts in this area, since in industrial terms we are relatively far forward. Our older industrial base makes progress in this matter much more difficult in the more heavily populated areas. These are the sort of fundamental problems that we shall be considering when we come to tackle the report in detail.

Does the Minister agree that some of the enthusiasm he has shown for combined heat and power will be to no avail if, in the next few years, local authorities are not allowed to develop district heating schemes? Does he further agree that the current cuts in local authority expenditure, particularly on housing, are likely to prevent district heating schemes from being developed, and that that would jeopardise combined heat and power in the future?

I cannot accept that. The sort of capital investment and lead times that will have to be discussed in regard to combined heat and power are much more substantial than the kind of short-term measures that will have to be taken to get our domestic economy back into shape.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the level of sulphur emission from coal-fired power stations.

I have received no specific representation about this. However, the question of sulphur pollution is to form a substantive element of the coal study being undertaken by the Commission for Energy and the Environment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important when we are comparing the economics of alternative sources of power generation that we take into account the need to ensure that whatever source is used is made as pollution-free as is technically possible, and that the cost of doing so is taken fully into account?

Of course, that is absolutely right. That is one reason why the Commission for Energy and the Environment is making its study. Of course, costs must be borne in mind.

Does not the Minister agree that the minor irritation referred to by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) does not compare with the hazard of a nuclear energy programme? Bearing in mind our vast coal resources, will not the Minister urge the Government to make a massive investment in this vital industry?

I do not think that that issue arises on this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is now able to make a statement about the turbine generator orders for the advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations at Torness and Heysham.

This is primarily a matter for the generating boards. An announcement will be made shortly.

Will the Minister be more specific? He will know of the concern of all those who work in the industry that this announcement should be made. We have been told that it might be made before the end of this month. Can he confirm that? Second, did the Minister see the " Panorama " programme last week and the outrageous attacks made in it on the whole AGR programme? Will he resist that kind of public relations blandishment, stick to his guns, get on with this programme and get the orders placed? Regardless of the merits of nuclear power or nay, if we are to proceed in this direction we should do so quickly.

I cannot be more specific. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement that will be made shortly. I am afraid that I did not see the television programme to which he referred, although I have had a report about it. We will not be pushed into any particular solution or reactor choice. This matter requires the most detailed, careful and intensive study.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make an additional statement about Government proposals for the reform of Parliament.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what improvements to procedure he intends to introduce.

As I made clear during the debate on the new Select Committee system on 25 June, the Government will be bringing forward further proposals to enable the House to reach conclusions on the other recommendations in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Since the Scottish Office is the most multi-purpose and one of the most bureaucratic Departments of State, why has the establishment of a Scottish Select Committee been omitted from the list of Select Committees already announced by the Government? Is the Leader of the House aware that it will be completely unacceptable for the setting-up of our Scottish Select Committee to be delayed simply because the Government are bereft of any policy on devolution? By the way, what is happening about the inter-party talks on devolution?

I do not accept the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Scottish Office is as efficient and expeditious as any other Department in Whitehall. I have made clear to the House that the Government intend to set up a Select Committee, but its terms of reference will be best decided after a successful conclusion of the inter-party talks. I have been pursuing with energy and dedication the task of setting up the talks, but there have been some difficulties that have not yet been overcome.

Does the Leader of the House recall that when he was talking about the phased introduction of salary increases for Members of Parliament he said that the arrangement would have to be seen to be fair? Has the Chancellor given some consideration to introducing a necessary reform—that of full-time MPs? Does he not think that factory workers see it as an outrageous disgrace that Members of Parliament earn substantial salaries and yet are able to line their pockets as frequently as they like with the proceeds of parliamentary advisers' posts and directorships? When Conservative Back Benchers talk about miners' productivity, does he not think that that creates a sense of outrageous injustice since it comes from Members of Parliament who have never been down a mine and do not intend to go near one but who can earn part-time as much as they like?

Order. I remind the House that Question Time is not the time for speeches but for questions. [An HON. MEMBER: " That was very good."] It might have been, but this is the time for questions.

Perhaps I may bring the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) down to earth again. With reforms of this House we must proceed by consensus as far as possible. We cannot introduce changes which are resisted by a substantial minority of hon. Members. As far as I know, in this case the concept of full-time Members means their being unable to take outside employment, which is rejected by the vast majority of hon. Members. The House benefits from the experience hon. Members gain in other spheres.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the years there have been one or two criticisms of the composition of another place? What are the Government's plans to reform the other place, and when does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce that reform?

The Government have no plans to reform the other place, which is a body respected throughout the country for the quality of its debates and its utility as a revising and amending Chamber.

What is the criterion of success in the all-party talks?

The criterion of success in the all-party talks will be a solution which will be of benefit to the entire United Kingdom.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the present pension system for manual workers employed in the Palace of Westminster.

Industrial civil servants employed at the Palace of Westminster by the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency are covered by the principal Civil Service pension scheme, which applies to virtually all established civil servants. Staff in the Refreshment Department of the House do not at present have a pension scheme, but the details of a scheme are currently under negotiation, and I hope to be able to put forward proposals to the House in the near future.

I note the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but does he agree that under successive Governments the way in which many staff who work here have been treated can only be described as utterly deplorable? In view of the comments that he has made, will the right hon. Gentleman make urgent representations, with the appropriate trade unions, for the introduction of a scheme, and will he in particular bear in mind those who may be retiring within the next year or two and who may not be covered by a new scheme? Does he recognise that their problem is most pressing?

I am aware of the pressing problem of the group of staff to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I hope that we can make progress, but it is essential that we have an equitable arrangement which will apply to all.

When is " the near future "?

I am not in the realm of prophecy—

It was the right hon. Gentleman who said it.

I am not in the realm of prophecy, unlike the hon. Gentleman, but I am hopeful that if the objections, which are now really minor, can be overcome, we shall have a settlement by the end of the year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the support of both sides of the House in trying to do right by those who have served us in the House? The fact that they are formally established or non-established civil servants is totally irrelevant.

I am most grateful. As so often, my hon. Friend has expressed the mind of the whole House.

asked the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made with the implementation of the report of the committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) on the administration of the House of Commons.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are grave doubts about the determination of the House authorities to implement some of the recommendations of the Bottomley committee, and these anxieties have been caused by the fact that it has taken two months to get the new House of Commons Commission appointed, that no recognition agreements have been reached with the trade unions in this place, and the whole question of the grading review, which was fundamental to the Bottomley reforms, has not so far been agreed? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment upon those points, and could he press the Commission to make early progress with them?

There have been difficulties in setting up the Commission, and they have now, I hope, been overcome. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Commission has been set up and will be tackling a number of problems. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the question of recognition which he raises is a complex and complicated problem. The Commission will have to approach it with preparation and intrepidity. Certainly, it will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

In considering this and related questions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that membership of the House is not in the ordinary trade union sense of the word a job of work but is a way of life?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Membership of the House is not so much a programme, it is more a way of life.

asked the Paymaster General what effect he expects tighter cash limits to have on the work of his Department.

The work of my Office consists of paying pensions and handling Government banking work, and the volume of this work depends on the demand. Provided that there is no unforeseen increase in this volume, my Office expects to be able to operate within the recently revised cash limit without appreciably affecting the efficiency of its service.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role and thank him for that answer. Is he aware that there is unlikely to be a reduction in his Department's work load from my constituency because of the large number of pensioners who live there? Further, is he aware that many of those pensioner constituents, especially those who receive their pensions through the post, have in the past few months been suffering increasing delays? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why there has been this increasing delay over the past few months, and whether it would be possible for him, without increasing public expenditure, to post the pensions a little earlier so that people could get them on time?

I am aware that there have been regrettable delays in paying pensions. There was a certain backlog in work due to industrial action, and more recently there has been delay owing to hold-ups in the postal service. My Office has done all it can to minimise these delays by posting payments earlier and has offered to help in individual cases where it can. I am glad to say that I understand that the situation is now improving.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious delay in the issue of new pension books, and that one constituent of mine, for example, has been waiting 15 weeks, with no pension? Will he look into this matter?

Yes, Sir; if the hon. Gentleman will give me details of that, I shall certainly look into it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was the last Government who altered the postal arrangements for payments to pensioners from first-class to second-class post, thereby adding considerably to the delay?

Yes, Sir, that is true. The last Government, when looking for economies in public expenditure, decided that my Office should send out its pension books by second-class rather than first-class post, and there was in fact a considerable saving in public money as a result.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is another group of people, who in some cases have worked for as long as 30 years in the Palace of Westminster—some of them behind the staff bars, the cafeteria, the Tea Room and so on—and they have no pension at all? They took certain limited industrial action—

Order. The Minister can answer questions only in respect of those for whom he is responsible, and I think that he is not responsible there.

asked the Paymaster General what meetings he has held with representatives of the press in his official capacity.

None, Sir.

When he does meet representatives of the press, will the right hon. Gentleman continue the arrangements with the Daily Mail under which scurrilous and untrue Conservative Party press releases issued under his own name are reprinted verbatim in the Daily Mail, as they were on 26 April during the general election campaign under the title " Twelve Labour Lies "? Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has virtually doubled VAT, prescription charges have been increased, and the Government intend to sell off BP, will the right hon. Gentleman, having earlier made those allegations against the Labour Party, now withdraw the accusation and apply it to himself?

I do not think that that arises out of the original question.

asked the Paymaster General if he will state his engagements for 9 July.

Apart from my attendance in the House and a visit I made to the press division of the Department of Education and Science this morning, I have no engagements today outside my office.

rose—

Order. The House knows what I have said about open questions addressed to anyone other than the Prime Minister. I propose to exercise my discretion not to call a supplementary question. I have said it on three occasions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your decision on question No. 59, Mr. Speaker, not to allow any comment came as something of a surprise. First, Mr. Speaker, you prejudged my supplementary question, which could have been about the reply. I know that that would be rather strange in the House of Commons, but it is a possibility that should not be excluded from your thoughts, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, with a new Government there are inevitably a number of members of that Government whose role is somewhat shadowy.

rose—

Order. Within the past two weeks I have reminded the House of the ruling that I gave twice before, in which I said that to protect the Order Paper and to stop every Minister having a long list of questions about his engagements. I do not propose, until the House instructs me otherwise, to call any hon. Member to ask a supplementary question of a Minister, other than the Prime Minister, when it is a shot-in-the-dark question. Until the House instructs me otherwise, that I propose to do.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take a point of order but not a point of disputation.

You have said, Mr. Speaker, that that is your ruling until you receive contrary instructions from the House. That is understood. However, how does the House produce that instruction, bearing in mind that business is in the control of the Government? The Government want the advantage of not having general questions, so they are hardly likely to provide time for debating a motion giving you fresh instructions, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman is right in that I do not draw up the Order Paper. It is equally right that I have received forceful protests from both sides of the House, the protesters rejecting the farce of the open question that removes from the Order Paper notice to the House of the real question that is to be asked.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the Leader of the House present, may I refer to energy questions and the time that is allocated? Since the previous Parliament we have lost five minutes from the limited time that is available for energy questions. Bearing in mind the increasing importance of energy to hon. Members and their constituents, I ask that the time available for energy questions be restored to the previous allocation. You will have noted. Mr. Speaker, that we reached only question No. 14 on the Order Paper.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I do not control the Order Paper. However, his words will have been heard by those responsible.

On a somewhat similar point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is still in the Chamber, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the outcome of his discussions that originated from complaints from both sides of the House that 30 minutes, less five minutes for Prayers, is an utterly inadequate allocation to deal with Foreign Office questions.

I allowed the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) to make his point of order as I allowed the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) to make his. However, these are not matters for me. It would be out of order for the Leader of the House now to seek to make a statement without notice. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what has been said.

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it by Standing Order, or is it within the discretion of the Chair, that having exhausted questions to the Paymaster General we reverted to questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rather than—as I admit I expected—to energy questions, which appear earlier on the Order Paper?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I reverted to questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster because if there had been no questions for the Paymaster General, the questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy would have run until 3.30 p.m.