asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy regarding increased investment by the National Coal Board.

The Government believe that substantial investment in the coal industry should continue. The National Coal Board's capital expenditure on fixed assets in 1980–81 is expected to show an increase in real terms over this year.

Is the Minister aware not only that the National Coal Board's plan to extract coal from under the Forth at Musselburgh Bay will be a highly profitable investment for the nation, but that an early decision on this 60 million investment is vital to the morale of the Scottish coalfield? Will he do all that he can to expedite progress on this project?

Yes. The Government are aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in that project. It is an investment project, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, of £37 million for a new mine at Musselburgh. Planning permission was applied for in September 1978 and the processes for planning permission are still under way. Approval has not yet been sought as those processes must be completed first. We are conscious of the importance of the Scottish coal area to the national coal industry.

If the Minister, the National Coal Board and the Government are convinced that coal investment in Scotland should increase, will he explain why the percentage of capital investment in the coal industry in Scotland this year will, according to the NCB, plummet to only 5 per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that estimated capital investment in the Scottish coalfield is £49^.3 million. That compares very favourably with the total investment in the whole of the United Kingdom, as it is a greater percentage than that of the coal industry as a whole.

What would my hon. Friend's attitude be to this necessary increased investment if, despite the recent vote in favour of their wage settlement, divisions within the National Coal Board were to strike in sympathy with employees of the British Steel Corporation? Would not that seriously undermine public confidence in the future of the coal industry?

Clearly we want to look at investment in the coal industry in terms of its ability to turn the industry further towards commercial profitability. Obviously, anything that undermines the importance of that progress would deter long-term optimistic investment in the industry. I do not wish to assume a hypothetical negative.

Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that over £50 million of successful investment was put into the South Wales coalfield during the past five or six years and that all that could become worthless as a result of the British Steel Corporation's decision to import over 40 per cent. of its coking coal requirements? Even given the Government's philosophy of not intervening, surely the Minister should bring together the chairmen of these two industries to try to knock sonic sense into them in an effort to prevent one industry from cutting the throat of the other.

The two chairmen have been and are in continuous discussion. I hope that we shall return to this point on a later question specifically relating to imports. Clearly, this debate is taking place between two nationalised industries, both of which have a stake in their long-term profitability.

Is the Minister aware that his statement regarding the Musselburgh coalfield will be greatly welcomed in Scotland? Is he further aware that that new coalfield find underneath the Firth of Forth is equivalent to a massive North Sea oil find, such as the Forties? We certainly welcome his statement today.

I appreciate those comments very much.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy for how many years he expects the United Kingdom to remain self-sufficient in oil.

It is difficult to estimate demand and production with precision for more than a few years ahead, but it is likely that we shall be net self-sufficient in oil during the 1980s.

Does not the Secretary of State for Energy agree that a slower rate of extraction would be in this country's best interests?

It has been made clear that the Government are considering the whole question of depletion and depletion policy very carefully indeed. We recognise that it is an important part of the future of oil policy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, if self-sufficiency is to continue over some period, the oil industry needs a firm framework within which to operate on the lines of the Varley assurances which need to be updated and superseded? When can we expect such a statement of Government policy? When it is made, will it be the subject of debate in the House?

I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment that a firm framework is needed. That is why we will not be rushed into what is an important policy framework. When policy decisions are reached clear statements will be made. Whether the subject is debated in this House is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I am fully aware of the vital importance of this issue.

Will the Secretary of State concede that part of this framework is an indication of pricing policy? Will he give some indication to the House what advice he is giving to BNOC on pricing policy at present, to avoid BNOC selling oil for roughly $30 a barrel when oil is being sold at $40a barrel on the so-called free market?

This is a slightly different question, but the policy for United Kingdom oil producers is that they should follow and not lead world oil market prices. The difficulty at present is to establish, as between producer and customer, what the world oil market prices are. The Government's policy is that we have an overall interest, as the Government of an oil-consuming nation, to see that the forces which shape world oil market prices are moderate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy concerning withholding information on nuclear design and safety.

It is the policy of the Government and all concerned with the nuclear industry to make as much information available on nuclear safety as reasonably possible.

In the light of the latest revelations of reactor cracks being found measuring three metres, and given the Government's huge proposed nuclear building programme, will the Minister now instruct the electricity boards, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to publish in full safety studies of AGR reactors which, up to now, they have refused to do? Will he also publish in full the safety documents relating to the American PWR and not just an expurgated version?

On the AGR, the Government are asking that a safety document should be published. I point out to the hon. Member that that is much more than was done by the previous Administration who took the first steps towards the orders for the latest two AGRs. We are insisting that the design for the Hinckley reactor, on which the Heysham and Torness reactors are to be based, should be published.

Is the Minister aware that the rather wild reports in the press on Friday, particularly in The Guardian, of the effects of closing Dungeness "A" station have caused concern on Romney Marsh? What assurance can he give my constituents that no danger exists?

I assure my hon. Friend that no health hazard is posed in his constituency. What happened was that following the cracks that were discovered in No. 1 reactor it was decided, as a precautionary measure, to bring forward the biennial inspection of the No. 2 reactor.

When the Secretary of State made his recent statement on the PWR—Official Report, 18 December, col. 291—he said that he had not yet made up his mind whether to have a public inquiry or what sort of public inquiry should be established into a PWR being built. Has he yet made up his mind?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is another question on the Order Paper specifically about the form of inquiry.

In view of the oft-expressed interest in nuclear matters by the Liberal Party, and regretting its total absence from the House today, has my hon. Friend received any representations from that party about these important matters?

I occasionally receive representations from Liberal Party Members about nuclear matters, but not recently on the specific point that has been raised.

I commend the Central Electricity Generating Board on its meeting held last Friday to give Members of Parliament information on these matters. Is the Minister aware that that meeting revealed a frightening lack of information to deal with contingencies in London boroughs? Will he take immediate steps to ensure that dangerous nuclear material does not go through Willesden Junction and areas of high population, where the risk is extreme and my constituents are very worried?

I did not have the benefit of the presentation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he cares to write to me on that specific point I will look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts.

I next expect to meet other EEC Energy Ministers at the Energy Council meeting planned for 19 February.

Does my right hon. Friend think that any progress will be made towards the development of a Community energy policy at this meeting? Does he agree that a common energy policy, organised on the same lines as the common agricultural policy, would be beneficial to this country?

I am not sure that I would agree unreservedly with the last remark made by my hon. Friend. At these meetings we continue to work for a basis for a common energy policy where it is beneficial to the member States concerned. There are undoubtedly grave difficulties and I have never sought to disguise that fact.

When the Minister meets his counterparts in the EEC, what will his reaction be, on behalf of the Government, to the proposals by the Commission for a second five-year programme dealing with nuclear waste management?

The question of nuclear policy is a matter for the United Kingdom Government, but we obviously examine proposals from the Commission to see whether they will bear fruit and are useful from our point of view.

Before my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in Europe, will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the prevailing situation whereby horticulture in Holland receives its gas supplies at a much lower price than the horticulture industry in Britain, thus effectively subsidising competition? Following those discussions, will he take the matter up with his Dutch counterpart to try to achieve the same price for gas for both industries?

I am always glad to have discussions, both with my opposite numbers in member countries and, indeed, with my colleagues in the Government. On the question of subsidies and the price of different supplies of gas throughout the Community, comparisons are difficult. However, I shall certainly look into this matter if my hon. Friend is suggesting that there is unfair competition here.

As every Community country that has a coking coal industry subsidises it—in the case of the German Federal Republic, to the tune of £297 million for 1978—will the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that he will now make an application for a grant to save our coking coal industry from heavy redundancies and pit closures? This would cost only £20 million in the coming year which would meet the gap, and thus avoid BSC having to import coal.

I am aware of the deep concern about coking coal, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused. There is no honey pot, as it were, within the EEC from which we can draw grants for coking coal. There are provisions that within member countries subsidies can be provided for different forms of coal production and the coal industry. In this country we make our decisions about the kind of subsidies that we provide and we also have to assess whether we have the finance available to pay for that. There is no central provision within the EEC from which we can draw sums to help ourselves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still standing firm in his refusal to use Government money for the coking coal industry? It is only in the absence of any assurance that he will consider this issue that we have to look to the EEC, because it is the policy of the EEC that European countries should be self-sufficient in energy and that there should not be a reduction in the coal capacity of the Community.

We have made it clear to the National Coal Board that, within the very large sums to be made available to it from the taxpayer this year for the support of the coal industry and its development, it is free to divert sums for assisting the coking coal industry. That has been made quite clear to the NCB. It is free to move in that direction if it so wishes. That is well within the rules of the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to reply to the report by the Combined Heat and Power Group.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made in his consultations concerning the recommendations of the Marshall report on combined heat and power schemes.

As I said on 26 July, the Marshall report on combined heat and power identified several major issues which go beyond energy considerations. The Government are studying these issues very carefully and will make their views known in the near future.

Before making any statement on this important report, will my hon. Friend make available to himself other studies by experts in combined heat and power who were not on the committee suggesting that using the heat from power stations can reduce the cost of the power building programme, as well as saving fuel and making substantial amounts of heat available to those who are now having to go without?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's long interest and serious concern on this subject. Obviously, any additional papers will be considered by the inter-departmental committee, which will, I hope, report to me in the very near future.

Are the Government aware that a programme of gigantic nuclear power stations of 1,500 MW apiece is quite inconsistent with any sensible policy for combined heat and power, since these stations will inevitably—at least, so one hopes—be sited well away from urban centres where the combined heat and power systems could best be used?

It seems to me, looking to our long-term energy needs—whether of coal, gas, oil, combined heat and power or our nuclear programme—that we cannot disconnect any one, and we shall probably need each and all of these facilities to ensure that we meet our energy needs by the end of this century.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whom he intends to consult about Her Majesty's Government's future nuclear energy policy.

I had consultations with the nuclear industry, the electricity industry and the Atomic Energy Authority in advance of my statement to the House on 18 December. I shall continue to consult the bodies most directly concerned, as appropriate, and to encourage wider public debate about nuclear policy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that opponents of our nuclear programme include genuine doubters as well as trouble-makers and even the nation's enemies who would love to see us denuded of any effective form of power altogether in the future? As it is often easier to spread alarm than confidence, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to take the public with him on this matter and ensure that the energy alternatives to no nuclear programme are as widely known and understood as possible?

We shall certainly do all that we can in that direction. It is our policy to release information on these matters, not to suppress or withhold it, and we shall certainly put before the public as much information as possible.

The list of those whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted did not include the House of Commons. Does he recall that on 18 December he announced a programme which could be interpreted only as a £20 billion investment programme, on a scale far bigger than Windscale, in reactors widely believed to be the American PWR? Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the precedent of the Labour Government and seek explicit authority from the House of Commons by a vote in the House before this massive programme in what appear likely to be the American PWR reactors is regarded as accepted by the House of Commons, to which he is responsible?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's figures, and, as I pointed out to him on 18 December, I think, neither do I agree with his assessment about this being such a massive or, indeed, a crash programme. As to consultation, it goes without saying that consultation with the House is central to this vital policy issue. Indeed, I go further and say that I far prefer the House of Commons to have the central place in consultation than that the matter should be waved away into some tripartite consensus body such as the Energy Commission locked away in Whitehall. It is far better that the issue should be discussed here in the House.

Will my right hon. Friend consult also those concerned in the French nuclear power programme, where nuclear power stations are being specifically sited only where the reject heat can be used within a reasonable radius for providing heat for industry and domestic use?

We keep in close touch with our neighbours in the EEC over their nuclear programmes, and I see the French Minister of Industry, who carries responsibility for these nuclear issues, fairly frequently.

In an earlier reply, the Under-Secretary of State said that he would ask the relevant authorities to publish the safety reports on the AGR and the PWR. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to announce that he will instruct those authorities to publish the full unexpurgated safety reports on these types of plant?

This will be done, as my hon. Friend said in the earlier reply. We have ensured that these publications will take place. They are statutory bodies. They recognise their responsibilities, and they will make the publications as we have suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what priorities he will establish in the objectives of the seventh round of North Sea oil exploration licences in terms of future national requirements and the criteria for applicant companies.

The priority will be to encourage the exploration for, and development of, our oil and gas resources in a thorough, responsible and timely manner.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State say a little more, specifically in the light of the ever-spiralling cost of drilling, about what special incentives he envisages for smaller British companies and to deal with the more marginal exploration areas?

It is hoped that smaller British companies will have a very useful part to play in the seventh round. While there are no particular incentives for them to involve themselves in the seventh round, we have reason to believe that many of them will be part of consortia made up of small companies and some with larger ones.

Given the enormous proportion of our oil requirements which will be provided from the North Sea in the 1980s—indeed, we shall have a surplus—will the Government follow a policy of allowing our oil resources to be depleted slowly? Further, will the Minister give an assurance that North Sea oil will not be sold forward of production in order to finance tax cuts for the rich?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already touched on the question of depletion policy, and I can confirm that this is a matter into which we will not be rushed. It is of vital importance for the years to come, and it is essential that we reach the proper conclusions. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not in any way agree with the assumption which he makes.

What consideration are the Government giving to requiring companies to make cash bids in the seventh round, and what thoughts has he on the fact that such cash bids would have to come out of fixed exploration budgets, which might cause smaller companies to be extremely hesitant about entering bids and, indeed, slow down any exploration by any company?

My hon. Friend makes a substantial point at the end of his question. We have considered the matter of auctions. We have no commitment to include auctions in the seventh round. We have not, however, ruled them out for the future, though the House will appreciate that one has to be very cautious in these matters, since the mere fact of auctioning might rule out some very desirable offers.

How does the Minister propose to operate the agreement between the Department of Energy and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association in respect of ensuring that British companies get full and fair opportunity? How does the Minister propose to operate that in conjunction with the rundown of the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow?

In the seventh round the record of companies will obviously be taken into consideration, and the way in which they have previously observed the full and fair opportunity which results from the activities of the Offshore Supplies Office will be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman asks about the rundown of the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow. This has been a rationalisation created by the Offshore Supplies Office itself. In fact, the new Offshore Supplies Office set-up in Glasgow will be stronger than that which we inherited.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy on the use of alternative fuels to petrol for internal combustion engines.

We welcome the use of alternative fuels where they are safe, economic and efficient in use.

Will it not be necessary to develop engines that will operate on a wider band of distillants? Should not the Government facilitate that proposal and, in that context, is it not surprising that they persist in the discriminatory tax on diesel fuel?

We recognise the potential for fuel saving by the diesel engine. However, that must be offset against the greater cost of diesel in capital terms and the ability of the car industry to meet the increased demand for diesel engine vehicles. The question of diesel fuel duties is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The implications for energy saving are obviously important to my Department and I have given full weight to the consideration of these matters.

What consideration has been given to the development of the electric vehicle in this country, where an exhibition has been held this year, in the light of the announcements by a number of traditional car companies in the United States?

I recently visited the Lucas development, which is pursuing the development of the electric vehicle. There is an extensive programme of Government-aided research in this country and the Department of Industry has spent about £7 million so far on aiding research to develop electric battery vehicles.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to the concept of building up a surplus energy capacity, whether electricity, coal, gas or oil in the United Kingdom during the remainder of the century, in order to improve the balance of payments position, meet deficiencies in the rest of Europe, and enhance security of supply within the EEC.

I keep both our production capability and levels of energy exports from the United Kingdom under continuing review.

Does not the visit of the Foreign Secretary to the oil-producing countries demonstrate to the Western world—Europe and this country—that oil supplies are even less secure now than they were in the last decade? Does not depletion policy, whether of oil or gas, depend on creating the availability of electricity, whether from coal, wave power or nuclear sources, to meet the urgent requirements of Europe?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks. The security of oil supplies is an important matter. Obviously, the electricity market and the possibility of electricity exports from this country to Europe are also extremely important matters. That is why we have held discussions with Electricité de France about a cross-Channel link.

Will the Minister remind the rest of Europe and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) that our reserves of oil and gas are strictly limited? The national interest suggests that those reserves cannot be used to help meet a deficiency in Europe but should be retained for home consumption. Does not that bring into question the policy of Britain being a net exporter of oil in the 1980s?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already answered a question about depletion policy. It makes financial and commercial sense for this country to trade North Sea Oil. However, it is the duty of the Government to secure that this country has adequate oil supplies.

Now that the European Commission has—once again—dispelled the myth that it wants to get its hands on North Sea Oil in the answer that was made in December to Lord O'Hagan in the European Parliament, should we not have enough confidence to make positive proposals within the Community and press ahead with a Community oil policy?

We have emphasised over and again to our European partners that North Sea Oil is of benefit to Europe as a whole. About 28 per cent. of British production over the last 12 months was exported to Europe and that has been of considerable benefit to the Community. We should like to proceed to a joint energy policy on many matters and that is why we have put forward our proposals on coal.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be of considerable benefit not only to the balance of payments but to British industry generally if the generation programme in this country were stepped up? The development of the cross-Channel link will greatly aid the export of some of our surplus energy resources.

We are anxious to proceed with the cross-Channel link. However, as the hon. Gentleman may know, that proposal has to be subject to the normal planning procedures. We are waiting for the inspectors who conducted the inquiry to make their report to us. In principle, it is an economic matter of which we are in favour.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether any form of public inquiry will be held before permission is given to include a pressurised water reactor in the nuclear power programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he will take to consult public opinion before the announcement of any further extension of the nuclear programme.

The Government attach great importance to full public debate on nuclear power and, with the bodies concerned, are helping to ensure that appropriate information is available.

Will the Secretary of State promise that the alibi of "commercial confidentiality", which has already been mentioned this afternoon, will not inhibit information being presented to such an inquiry? Will he also consider the possibility of providing funds to voluntary bodies that may wish to present evidence to such an inquiry.

I shall certainly consider the second matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. On the first matter, it is not a question of an alibi. Where the commercial information can be supplied only on the condition that it is not published and that condition is broken, the information is not available and it is not supplied by the company concerned.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House, if there is to be a public inquiry on pressurised water reactors, whether that inquiry will take place before or after the building of the experimental reactor? If the latter course is adopted, that would provide details for a subsequent inquiry about the consequences of installing such reactors.

Certainly, there will be an inquiry into that matter. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman asked about the nature of the inquiry. Normal planning procedures allow scope for a full and thorough inquiry, and that will take place. We shall give careful consideration to the precise form and scope of that inquiry when we decide upon it. Further inquiries naturally arise when applications for the siting of further reactors are received.

The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement. He said that it will be a normal planning inquiry. However, he has been constantly pressed on the matter and I believed that he had agreed to undertake to look at the possibility of a wide-ranging inquiry. That would allow comparative cost, safety and import content to be considered. As the decision to change from a gas-cooled reactor to a pressure water reactor was a major one, the House and the country would also have the satisfaction of having an inquiry of the nature of the Windscale inquiry. A normal planning inquiry is not satisfactory.

The right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that normal planning procedures allow scope for a full and thorough inquiry. That is a different matter from the words that he alleged that I uttered.

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

My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with the chairman of British Gas. I shall be meeting him next on 28 January.

In view of that reply and as a result of the recent proposed increases in gas prices, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the substantial profits which will now be made by the British Gas Corporation will be used to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and/or to assist the less prosperous types of energy?

In a few moments, my right hon. Friend will answer a question about gas pricing which is closely related to the question of the Corporation's profits.

When the hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of the British Gas Corporation will be raise with him, in the light of the high rate of unemployment in the Northern region, the possibility of introducing a system of subsidising the consumption of gas by industry in the regions? Alternatively, the Corporation could introduce a system whereby its prices varied dependent on the levels of unemployment in various parts of the country. That would be a major incentive for bringing industry to the regions.

I am afraid that I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks. At a time when demand is considerably outstripping the supply of gas it would make no sense to increase the element of subsidy. I do not believe in the hon. Gentleman's logic of a regional differential relating to unemployment. Gas must be priced according to the market and according to economic criteria.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Corporation, will he suggest that the Corporation might consider allowing certain domestic consumers a given amount of gas at a reasonable price, before the price goes up? At present, the greater the quantity of gas that is consumed, the more economic it is.

The structure of tariffs and the precise relationship of the small consumer's tariff, is primarily of concern to the British Gas Corporation. If my hon. Friend wishes to make a specific suggestion, I shall be glad to discuss it with the chairman.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when last he met the chairman of the Electricity Council.

My right hon. Friend and I keep in close touch with the chairman of the Electricity Council and I met him last week.

Next time my hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he consider telling him that the Government have abandoned Lord Plowden's plans for the reorganisation and centralisation of the electricity supply industry as being an unnecessary hangover of a now defunct fashion for centralisation?

My right hon. Friend has already made a statement on the reorganisation of the industry. He has indicated his preference for seeking desirable changes without legislation if that is possible. However, he also said that legislation was not ruled out if it proved to be necessary. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's views as he has considerable experience in this industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the likely level of gas prices.

I will be making a statement in the near future about the financial targets that we shall be setting the gas and electricity industries, which will include implications for pricing policy.

Is it not clear that the proposed increase in gas prices will cause tremendous hardship to a large number of pensioners and others on very low incomes? Is the Secretary of State aware that there are many elderly and poor members of the community who cannot afford fuel at its present price? If the Government go ahead with substantial increases in the price of gas, surely they are under an obligation to bring in a proper scheme to help those in need.

I shall be making a statement on the precise price implications. I have repeatedly made it clear that, after a year in which crude oil prices have risen 100 per cent. worldwide, domestic gas prices must go up if we are not to burn up all our natural gas assets dangerously fast and so create future shortages. I recognise that those facing hardship must be helped by social policy. Our policies are designed to concentrate help where it is most needed.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, whilst economic pricing is accepted by everyone, many people, particularly domestic consumers, find it surprising that they are to suffer price increases of 17 per cent. in January and February and of 10 per cent. 12 months later? Will he therefore, in consultation with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation, ensure that the reasoning behind this move is better explained, as otherwise there will be major criticism of this policy?

My hon. Friend has made a fair point about gas prices. As regards the profits of the British Gas Corporation, we must look not just at the Corporation but at the wider considerations of British energy policy and the cost of future supplies of gas, as they will be far higher than at present. It is desirablethat some of the proceeds of higher gas prices should go to the community as a whole as is the case for North Sea oil. I am glad that a report of the consumer councils which was published today recognises that point. It is not clear to me why those using electricity should subsidise those using gas.

Most people would agree with the Secretary of State that some of the hundreds and millions of pounds of profits that will come to the British Gas Corporation should go back to all the energy industries in order to help their investment programme, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we cannot continue to have a domestic gas or electricity price that is subject to OPEC decisions without some generous system of helping those families and people most at risk because of the high energy cost? Fuel is now one of the largest elements in the household budget. There are rent and rate rebate schemes. Surely there is now an overwhelming case for an energy rebate scheme.

The consumer councils, which have written a very good report, rightly point out that these are the concerns of social policy and not of energy policy. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's point, but our social policies will be developed in order to take account of hardship caused by the high cost energy era. However, six months ago even the Price Commission said that domestic gas was under priced by 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. It is still about the cheapest domestic gas in Europe. We must meet the vital needs of industry, yet the previous Government ducked this issue along with many others. We must now move towards consistency in energy prices if our national strategy is not to be undermined.

Will my right hon. Friend consider linking gas prices as a percentage of the home heating oil price as a long-term policy?

No. That would raise very great complexities. We must move towards consistency in energy prices in order to maintain a proper national energy strategy. That is the path upon which we must now set ourselves. We cannot achieve that at once and nor should we seek to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what response he proposes to make to representations made on the import of coal and coal products.

My right hon. Friend discussed British Steel's plans to import more coking coal with the chairman of the National Coal Board and the mining unions on 18 December. The board is having further discussions with the BSC.

Is the Minister aware that the Welsh coalfields supply 2½ million tons of coking coal to the steel industry in Wales and that the threatened partial or total closures at Llanwern and Port Talbot and the fact that the BSC is negotiating to double its imports will have a devastating effect on the Welsh coalfields and that half the demand for coking coal will be lost?

The two nationalised industries are still in discussion and the Government have made clear that no further financial assistance can be provided, but within the large amounts of taxpayers' money already provided to the coal industry we have given permission for the payment of coking coal grants. The matter is still under discussion between the two nationalised industry boards.

Is there not a need for the Government to provide the House with more information? We are told by the press that the BSC made a miscalculation of about £4 per ton on the comparison between the cost of British coal and foreign coal. Since the Minister and the Government are custodians of the coal industry and the miners, should they not make a statement about how they intend to protect the future of our indigenous coking coal resources, and in consequence, mining jobs?

The Government have made clear their commitment to the long-term commercial and profitable success of our nationalised coal industry. However, the Government have also made clear that considerable sums of taxpayers' money have already been advanced. Within that money, permission has been granted to pay coking coal subsidies. It is up to the NCB to further its discussions with the BSC.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish part 2 of the Boyle report relating to payment of Members' secretaries and research assistants.

The exact timing of the submission of the report is a matter for the review body itself, but I can say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to receive it soon.

Is the Lord President aware that most of us who gave evidence to Boyle about the conditions and pay of hon. Members, also gave evidence about secretaries and research assistants? Is he further aware that it would be intolerable if in mid-1979 hon. Members were seen to take substantial increases whilst simultaneously ignoring the plight of secretaries and research assistants? Does he agree that we should not short-change those who provide an essential service to the House and to the British public?

I am glad to join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the work done by secretaries for Members of the House, which has been recognised, in part only, by an interim award given at the time of the review of Members' salaries. The review body is considering the level of secretarial salaries and related issues. As soon as we have those recommendations, along with the other recommendations of the review body, we shall give them most urgent consideration and come before the House with recommendations.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that secretaries, research assistants and hon. Members presently work in intolerable conditions within the Palace of Westminster? Will he seek to convince his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that unless something is done immediately there will be a revolt among hon. Members because they find it impossible to do the work that they were elected to do on behalf of their constituents?

I have considerable sympathy with that point. It is true that the conditions under which hon. Members work would not be tolerated by equivalent persons in commerce or industry. However, at a time of financial stringency we must make our contribution to the general welfare and I cannot hold out early hopes for any radical improvement. We shall do our best with what we have.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the way in which this House scrutinises European Economic Community legislation.

The existing scrutiny procedures are in accordance with decisions of the House. The Procedure Committee in its First Report (Session 1977–78) proposed certain changes and I hope there will soon be an opportunity to debate these.

Will the Lord President tell the House how soon is soon? Does he not accept that there is widespread discontent in all parts of the House about the appalling lack of time spent in scrutinising European legislation? Will he implement that report very quickly?

Soon is soonest, and by that I mean that as soon as consultations have been completed, and as soon as I have assessed the view of the House on European legislation procedure and other issues, we hope to make progress.

Does my right hon. Friend seriously contend that we can maintain effective scrutiny of EEC legislation or anything else while we continue to be virtually the only major legislature in the West that denies itself the assistance of modern data processing techniques and information technology?

I shall certainly look into that important point which is raised not for the first time by my hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many European Economic Community documents have been referred to the House for debate by the European Economic Community Scrutiny Committee; and what is his estimate of the number of debates required to dispose of them.

Since the start of the new Parliament, 51 Community documents have been referred to the House for debate and 42 recommendations for debate remain from the previous Parlia- ment. Seventeen documents have been debated. It is not practicable to estimate the number of debates required for the remaining 76 documents.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that authoritative estimates put the number of debates at about 30? Is it not high time that he told the House why the proposals of the Procedure Committee for discussing the merits of these documents upstairs have not been accepted? Does he agree that, if he told the House what the objections were, consultations would proceed apace to get the business off the Floor of the House and upstairs into Committee?

I hope that the situation is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman thinks.

Worse.

No, it is not worse. I think that it is rather better. Fifty-two of the 76 documents have been recommended for debate in 11 groups and there is another group of 30 documents concerned with fisheries, and I hope that we shall be able to make progress there. Meanwhile, may I pay tribute to the Committee and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for this tedious but important work.

Would it be wise to consider less important matters upstairs in Committee and deal with more important subjects, such as fisheries, on the Floor of the House?

I shall certainly look into the matter to see how we can expedite procedures.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is insufficient time to debate this vast number of EEC documents? Most of them tend to go through in the hour and a half when our ranks have thinned after the 10 o'clock Division. The vast majority of our people are now clearly opposed to membership of the EEC. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is not the right way to handle the matter?

I do not wish to get into a discussion of general political issues concerning the European Economic Community. These matters are important, but they are largely technical and it is not possible to debate them in what I might call prime time. I hope that we can dispose of quite a number of the documents in the next few weeks.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ask members of the Labour Party why, if they are so worried about these matters, the recent GATT documents went through on the nod, thus allowing us all to go home at 9.20 pm.

We must be thankful for small mercies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please assure us that the Government will not allow decisions to be taken on these orders in Brussels while we are waiting to discuss them here?

We have given an undertaking. We try to ensure that, unless there are particular circumstances, important matters are debated here before any decision is taken in Brussels.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations have been received regarding the use of facilities at the House by Members of the European Assembly.

Representations have been received from the leaders of the two main United Kingdom party groups in the European Parliament. These are being considered by the Services Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no justification on constitutional or accommodation grounds for Euro-Assembly Members to use the facilities at Westminster? Will he do his best to resist the representations that are being made about the matter?

That is one view, but another view held equally strongly by other hon. Members is that facilities of a reasonable but limited nature should be extended to European Members. I am trying to reach a reasonable compromise that will respect both views, and that is not easy.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whether or not one is in favour of Britain's membership of the EEC, there are overwhelming arguments for improving relationships between the two Assemblies? Is it possible to make available one of the upstairs overflow galleries to Members of the European Parliament?

My hon. Friend's second suggestion is a matter for the Services Committee and Mr. Speaker, as well as for myself. I certainly agree that it is better for the two Parliaments to grow together than to grow apart.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pre-eminently a matter to be decided by the House as a whole? Will he give an undertaking that he and the Government will not seek to press ahead with any proposal that they may have until they have the general consent of the House?

The matter is now before the Services Committee, and I am awaiting an indication of its views before taking the matter further.

Will the right hon. Gentleman go further than that? It is a matter that concerns all hon. Members in all parts of the House and it is not for the Services Committee to decide. Will he agree that the matter is to be decided finally in this Chamber and that it would be far better to deal with a matter affecting the facilities of the House by the general consent of the House?

In the last resort, if it is a matter of controversy that cannot be settled through the Services Committee, the usual channels or any other means, this Chamber must decide, but let us proceed one step at a time. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that we had better wait and see.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the question of access and facilities for Members of the European Assembly. Can you put at rest the minds of those of us who are concerned about that matter and confirm that there is no question of extending our facilities to any individual, other than those elected at general elections, without the full consent of the full assembly of this Parliament in this Chamber?

The Leader of the House made a very clear statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Well, it was clear to me. He said that the matter is to be pursued further.