asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken to increase production of coal in the United Kingdom in the light of the Venice agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans further to increase capital investment in the coal industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what effect the recent Venice summit agreement to double coal production by 1990 will have on the future of the British coal mining industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's strategy for coal, as embodied in the Coal Industry Bill now before the House, provides for record levels of capital investment in coal and will give the National Coal Board opportunities to expand production provided that the extra coal can be sold at a competitive price. That strategy, which is a continuation of measures adopted by successive Administrations of both parties, is in entire accord with the declaration of the Venice summit.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Venice summit commitment was not restricted to the North American continent? Even at this late stage, will he consider the inflexible time scale contained in the Coal Industry Bill to ensure that the coal industry can maintain research into the use of coal and mining technology, as well as maintain investment in new and existing collieries?

On the last point, the coal industry's commitment to research is well up. We wish to see that continue because of the diverse and exciting future for coal and coal products. The Venice summit target was for all seven countries taken together. The reality is that Britain is streets ahead of most of the other seven, both in coal use and in the proportion of coal in total electricity generation. The pressure from the Venice summit communique was intended for the other countries, to bring them up to the British standards of coal production and coal use. There is no doubt that the greater scope for production increase will be in the United States. If that is achieved, the general effect, combined with our plans for the industry, will be to increase coal production over the coming years to about double the present levels.

Does the Minister accept that there is real disappointment in the coalfields about the Government's response to the Venice agreement? Does he agree that, if we are to reach the coal production targets that have been discussed, there is need for an even greater drive in our coalfields and a speeding up of development in areas such as those in my constituency, where developments have been proposed? Is he aware that there is a growing fear for the first time in that coalfield about what the future will bring?

I know that there is a problem with the Park colliery in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Department of the Environment is considering the matter, especially the chlorine content of coal. In general, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is disappointment in the coalfields. It is recognised that massive investment is going into the coal industry and that the potential for the future is great, provided that we stick to present trends of higher productivity, lower absenteeism, better output per man-shift and, above all, competitive pricing for our coal.

Does the Minister agree that Governments may come and go but the coal mining industry will continue for a long time? Does he realise that the financial restriction placed upon the industry will neither benefit its long-term prospects nor create a viable industry? Will he bear in mind the fact that it is better for the Government to look for more co-operation and less confrontation with the trade union movement to ensure that the industry grows and becomes competitive with other nations?

Much depends on the meaning of the word "restriction". When I think of the external financing limit on the coal industry this year of more than £ 800 million, the £ 500 million in operational grants over the next three years, the £ 600 million a year, at 1979 prices, investment in the industry and the fact that social grants will continue after 1983-84, I find it difficult to square that with the concept of restriction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that coal could be a source of employment for South Yorkshire? He referred to the sale of coal at competitive prices. Is he aware that utilities in the Community—a possible export market—are shopping around for the cheapest coal available from insecure economic sources? What discussions has he had on an agreed price for coal for the future?

I am not sure about all the innuendoes in my hon. Friend's question. If he is talking about the expansion of coal trade and the coal needs, say, of West Germany, I can tell him that the Bonn Government recently decided on a 15-year plan for a vast increase in long-term coal contracts from wherever they can obtain the coal. There is no doubt that they will seek coal from wherever it is competitively priced. I would be proud, as would the coal industry, if Britain were able to compete in those markets in the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman for a moment drop his party dogma and think about the interests of energy provision for the nation? Is he aware that he cannot expect his answers to be accepted by the House when he persists in legislating to extinguish grants to the NCB in 1983-84? Is he aware that such persistence means pit closures and a consequent reduction in coal production? Does he accept that that is not the basis on which the Venice communique was signed? Why do the Government pursue a doctrinaire policy that will lead to restriction in production?

The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. He is experienced in the coal industry and its administration. He is on record as saying that it would be better if the coal industry could continue in profitability without operating grants. That is our aim over the next three years. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in believing that we are imposing a straitjacket. There is plenty of provision for grants in the £ 500 million of which I have spoken. There is plenty of provision for new investment. I do not see this as a straitjacket. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has the interests of the coal industry at heart, but in this case he is wrong.

Members rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that productivity has gone up since the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced direct taxes in the last Budget? If that is so, should we not encourage that pattern?

I confirm that productivity in the coal industry is rising. I hope that it continues to do so.

Is the Minister aware that in the near future we shall require production of 200 million tonnes a year? If we are to achieve that target, will not a terrific amount of good will be required in the industry? What steps is he taking to ensure that the good will that exists is maintained and increased?

I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's precise target figures. We need an expansion of coal production at competitive prices. I believe that we can achieve that. Good will in the industry, high productivity and big investment in existing faces and for opening up new pits are required. I believe that we can do no better for our coal industry than to ensure that it has the investment, the new equipment and mining machinery to provide the coal for tomorrow under better conditions than have obtained in the industry in the past.

rose—

Order. This matter comes up again shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he plans to bring forward legislation concerning the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on Monday 14 July.

Yes, I noticed that reply and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman seems to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) about the need to retain area boards and area board chairmen. Does the right hon. Gentleman's announcement mean the end of the concept of power boards and that he has ended his search for private capital in the electricity supply industry?

About 17 per cent. of electricity is already generated by private means in the industry. My announcement on 14 July confirms that we believe that substantial improvements in the structure of electricity supply can be achieved within the existing statutory framework.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no popular demand for reorganisation of the electricity supply industry? Does he agree that the best idea is to let sleeping Plowdens lie?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. There is no need for an enormous centralising upheaval in the industry. That would be the wrong course. There is need for improvement, but I believe that it can be achieved within the existing statutory framework.

Is the Minister aware that generally the last Labour Government supported the proposals in the Plow-den report? Is he aware that the reasons included the anomalies in pricing policy, installation of meters and disconnections? Is he aware that to the consumer it seems that the area boards have different policies? For instance, is he aware that in London five times more disconnections take place than in the rest of the country? Will he try to introduce a national standard policy, because the present system is distressing to poor people?

There are some anomalies and some variety. I am not sure that variety is necessarily bad. To compare the LEB with other areas with different problems is a little misleading. The hon. Gentleman reminds us that the previous Labour Government supported the centralising proposals in the Plowden report. We believe that they are out of date and that there is nothing for the consumer in such centralisation. I am not surprised that the last Labour Government took that view, but we take a different view.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of electricity is higher in Britain than in some competitor countries and that it is rising faster than in countries such as France and Germany which have major nuclear programmes? How will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is greater efficiency and competition in the industry so that we can retain our competitive position?

Efficiency and competive-ness in the industry are important goals. That is one of the reasons why the present operations of the CEGB have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the new Competition Act—which was not possible before. Reference has been made to comparative prices, particularly for heavy energy-using industries. There is a danger in making snapshot comparisons when all over Europe contract prices are being revised upwards. We keep a close watch on this. I share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that we have a highly efficient and competitive industry drawing on efficiently priced fuels and with efficient operations so that it gives good service to the customer.

On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), is the Minister aware that in some areas there are many immigrants who cannot read or write English and who receive no notice that their electricity supplies are to be cut off? Will he ask the boards to notify the local social security department before they cut off a supply? If he does not do that, is he aware that many old people might die in winter through lack of heat? Will he ask the boards to notify the social security departments before they take action?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has taken a close interest in the matter, the code of practice has been reviewed. I take note of what he said. I shall see whether the provisions can be improved so that the problems he described are minimised.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy to what extent fuel prices are subsidised in the European Economic Community; and what representations he has made to the Council of Ministers on the matter.

The principle of economic pricing of energy was endorsed by all member States in the Energy Council of Ministers on 13 May. I do not have full details of the extent to which fuel prices may be subsidised in other member States. We are, however, continuing to stress on all occasions the importance of implementing this principle.

In the light of the information that I have given to the Department about the extent of the subsidy for gas and coking coal, is my hon. Friend aware of the foundry and forging industries' view that either there must be an end to the subsidies, which in some cases amount to 100 per cent., or that there must be some control over the import of products of those industries?

I understand that my hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend at the Department about coking coal imports and will be receiving a reply. It is largely a matter of other countries being more competitive and not a question of subsidies.

Will the Minister confirm that his Department has plenty of information to prove that our energy pricing policy is markedly disadvantageous to British industry? Will he accept that, although we are achieving self-sufficiency, we are also achieving idiocy?

I do not accept that. Energy costs are a small proportion of the total cost of most industries—usually about 1 or 2 per cent. We are watching carefully the trend in gas and electricity prices in this country and in the EEC to ensure that British industry is not at a disadvantage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that tomato growers in Holland receive a considerable subsidy for their gas? Will he make representations to see either that that is discontinued or that United Kingdom growers receive a subsidy?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been making representations at the Council of Ministers, and the Commission has been preparing a report on the problem. Proposals are to be put to the Council of Ministers tomorrow.

What is the Minister's answer to the Chemical Industries Association, which has strongly protested to him that our gas is 7p to 17p per therm dearer than elsewhere and that Belgium and Italy particularly have heavily subsidised gas? Is he aware that our chemical industries on Merseyside and in Manchester, where there is high unemployment, are suffering the most? Has he no comfort to offer them?

I am meeting representatives of the chemical industry again this week. Average contract prices for gas in the first quarter of this year were 16p per therm, which may not be apparent from some tables that have been published. Renewals and new contracts are running at a higher rate than the average price for the first quarter of this year, but that is also true in other European countries. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Algerian negotiations with France for LNG, which are before transport and storage costs, are opening at 26p per therm, as is the Norwegian-German Gel-senberg deal.

Order. [Hon. Members: "Good answer."] It may be a good answer, but it is much too long.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with his Department's activities to encourage conservation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with progress being made in the United Kingdom on energy conservation.

I am satisfied that our energy conservation policy is effective. As part of this policy, and after completing the statutory consultation procedure, I have today laid an order before the House reducing the maximum heating limit in non-domestic buildings to 19 degs. centigrade. This order will come into effect on 1 October, and I estimate that the energy savings resulting from this reduction could be about 1 million tonnes of oil equivalent a year.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for the conservation measures that the Government have taken over the past year, but what attempt is the Department of Energy making to assess the cost effectiveness of conservation measures as against investment in additional generating capacity?

My hon. Friend will be aware, through his membership of the Select Committee on energy, that it has addressed that important question to the Department, and work is being undertaken on that at present.

As one who was in danger of overheating in Government offices last winter, will my hon. Friend accept that I welcome that reduction in the maximum heating limit? The overall objective is to reduce oil consumption. What are the latest figures on the consumption of petroleum and motor spirit, which in previous months showed signs of increase over last year's figures?

On the latest figures available for the three months from March to May 1980, United Kingdom petroleum usage was down 14-8 per cent. Motor spirit increased in usage by over 6 per cent. for the first quarter. Happily, for the past three months it is up by only 0-3 per cent., which is almost no increase.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had a most unsatisfactory answer from the Department of Energy about the energy saving in absolute and percentage terms in each Government Department? Will he accept that the Department refused to give me the figures and that I was given only an overall figure of 3 per cent.? Is that lack of information fair to the House?

The answer came from me, and I trust that I would not give an unsatisfactory answer to any hon. Member. The figures were based on usage by the Property Services Agency, which controls most energy usage in the Government sector, and the Ministry of Defence. I felt that my answer gave the information that was requested.

Does my hon. Friend accept that double glazing to protect people from loss of heat also shuts out aircraft noise and, therefore, brings a double benefit? Can he, therefore, see what can be done, in co-operation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade?

The House will be aware of my hon. Friend's long and dedicated service to his constituents in regard to aircraft noise. There have been great advances in double glazing, particularly through the promotion of the double glazing industry in the past few years, which will have helped my hon. Friend's constituents in their tribulations.

Is the Minister aware that it is universally recognised that investment in fuel efficiency is of far greater economic value than investment in new capacity? Why, therefore, are the Government proceeding with a lunatic programme of £ 25 billion investment in nuclear power stations?

Moderation in all things is desirable. There are arguments on the demand side and on the supply side. As for demand, we are addressing ourselves to the basic way in which fuel efficiency can be obtained through the intelligent use of the price mechanism.

In view of precedent and the need for Members of Parliament to be an example to the nation, would it not be a good idea for the House of Commons to aim for 5 per cent. less than the maximum heating limit? Will the Minister announce whether that should be fahrenheit or centigrade?

I shall draw that remark to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for the operation of the heating limits in the House. I am sure that we should all like to see less steam generated in the Palace of Westminster.

the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to meet the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the future of the coal industry.

My right hon. Friend and I met the executive committee of the National Union of Mineworkers on 27 June for a comprehensive discussion of the Coal Industry Bill, which embodies the Government's strategy for the development of the coal industry. We agreed that a further meeting could be held if it should be necessary.

Investment means jobs, and in the light of the technological advances in converting coal to oil will my hon. Friend discuss with the National Union of Mineworkers its attitude to the possibility of oil companies investing in coal mining, as appears to happen in other countries, and even perhaps taking on pits that the NCB has to close?

We should first make our coal industry profitable, which is the basis of our coal strategy. A total of £ 800 million is being invested in the coal industry this year. When we have a profitable industry, the NCB and NUM may welcome private investment, and private investors may welcome the opportunity to invest in the coal industry.

When the Minister discussed the future of the industry with the NCB, did he discuss the tonnage requirements per annum up to the year 2000? Will he assure us that he will not stand by and see pits closed for economic reasons rather than because the coal is exhausted?

Targetry was not specifically raised, but there is constant debate on the matter. Decisions on pit closures are for the NCB in consultation with the mining unions, and that will continue to be the practice.

Since coal has to compete with other sources of fuel and cannot for ever be sheltered from competition, should not the National Union of Mineworkers, whatever its bargaining strength, reflect that exorbitant demands could in the end lead to scarcity of jobs in the industry?

Pay is an issue for the National Coal Board. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has said. The expansion of our coal industry throughout the rest of the century should be in areas where it can compete with other fuels. It is in the interests of the miners and of Britain that the coal industry is able to meet its competitors head on in price and other competitive terms.

Is it not true that more pits were closed in Britain when miners, relative to their pay today, occupied the lowest place in the pay league? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the argument about miners pricing themselves out of the market therefore does not hold? Will he confirm that the subsidy in Western Germany is about £ 12 a tonne, in France £ 24 a tonne and in Britain £ 1 a tonne? If that angle is considered and if we increase the amount of coal that we use, we shall help to stop the dole queue spiralling upwards towards 2 million.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am addressing myself to the coal industry at present and in future. The industry does not need to fear the dole queues of the past. Unlike the coal industries of continental Europe, it plans for expansion and not stagnation or reduction in size. To that extent, it does not need the long-term subsidy structures of other industries.

Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a matter not merely of meeting the mining unions but of listening to what they have to say. Is he aware that there is scant evidence that he listens to the mining unions when he persists in changing the format of the National Coal Board balance sheet to show that the mining industry is in deficit? Does he agree that accountants cannot produce coal? It is miners who produce coal, and if he listens to what the miners and their leaders have to say we shall get more coal.

I would never fail to listen to the unions, the NCB and other members of the coal industry. At the end of the day, the unions will find in the mining areas that the Coal Industry Bill, "Strategy for Coal" and the commitment to a genuine successful future have been greeted positively.

the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the electricity supply in the United Kingdom was coal-generated in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1974.

It is estimated that the proportion of electricity supplied by the public supply system in the United Kingdom generated by coal in 1979 was about 71 per cent. For 1974 the comparable figure was about 57 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures represent satisfactory progress? Does he expect a further increase this year in the proportion of coal-generated electricity?

I cannot say what will happen this year. I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures represent satisfactory progress. At present the CEGB does not have any plans to construct new coal-fired stations, although studies have been undertaken of possible developments at a number of other sites.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are reports that the AGR developments at Torness and Heysham are already falling behind schedule? Does he not conclude that it would be better to obtain more generation of electricity from coal rather than nuclear power, where the problems still exist and are manifest?

We have to do both. We have to have a diversified system. The existing nuclear power stations on the grid system have supplied electricity at extremely competitive prices.

I welcome the decision that has been taken on the first major cross-Channel transmission link. What are my hon. Friend's proposals for transporting coal via transmission line to our fellow EEC members?

We have none at present. The cross-Channel link will enable us to use spare capacity on the system.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will bring forward legislation to provide for evidence to be taken on the desirability of any reactor system for which application for a site licence is made at the time of the licensing hearing.

I take it that my hon. Friend has in mind the possibility of an application by the CEGB for consent to build a PWR station at Sizewell, in his constituency. I have made it clear that there will be a full and thorough public inquiry on any such application. The principal safety documentation supporting the initial licensing of the station by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will be prepared with a view to its being made available to the public.

I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement. Does he agree that it is important that people should feel that they can argue the merits of the system as well as the siting? If we are to have a proper democratic argument, whether it goes against the Government or for the Government, it is important that everyone should feel that the report is based on real evidence that has been arrived at properly.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's philosophy. The Government take the view that there must be a full inquiry into any new reactor system and that all the issues must be explored thoroughly.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect such a public inquiry to be held? Will he confirm that there is increasing doubt whether the PWR design will pass even the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate? There is considerable scientific disquiet about the feasibility of running a PWR and a fast breeder reactor design at the same time. Is it not time that the Government reconsidered their decision on the PWR, bearing in mind that it conflicts with many other energy priorities?

I cannot say anything about the date for an inquiry yet. No application to build a PWR station has yet been received from the CEGB. As regards any conflict and any conflicting demand for manpower resources by the fast reactor as well as the PWR, we are still reviewing fast breeder reactor policy. No decisions have been taken and we do not expect an early announcement.

If the reference is to the Sizewell site and possibly to putting a pressurised water reactor on that site, would it not be as well if the Government awaited the conclusions of the investigations of the Select Committee on energy into the nuclear power programme?

I referred to a particular site only because it is in my hon. Friend's constituency and because there has been speculation about it. No decision has been made about any site. We are all awaiting the report of the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now estimates that the United Kingdom will be self-sufficient in the consumption of oil.

A rate of oil production roughly equivalent to net self-sufficiency should be attained towards the end of the year.

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that when that happy day arrives we shall have enough oil for our own use?

The Government do not expect that there will be any danger of not achieving self-sufficiency for our own use through the 1980s. There is constant monitoring and the Government will take whatever action is necessary in due course.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the price of oil is not settled by international competition but fixed by the largest cartel that the world has ever known, one that can control the supply of oil? How long are the Government to follow that cartel's pricing and what steps will they take to try to ensure its break-up so that we can achieve proper competition on international pricing?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be wrong for us to under-sell oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf. We have ensured that we have never led the upsurge in oil pricing. We have merely followed it. United Kingdom oil has been sold at a figure comparable to that of similar oils in other parts of the world. We believe this to be the correct policy.

When will the Minister make a statement on depletion policy so that we shall be able to gauge how long the considerable reserves in the North Sea could be used for the benefit of the United Kingdom economy? Secondly, will he indicate briefly the amount of United Kingdom oil that is now being exported?

My right hon. Friend will make an announcement soon on depletion policy. In 1979 approximately half of the oil produced from the continental shelf—39 million tonnes—was exported. That is continuing throughout 1980.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain's continued self-sufficiency in oil will depend largely on conservation measures? Will he, therefore, look at building regulations to ensure that new buildings and grants for the modernisation of old buildings are covered by regulations that ensure that they are properly insulated?

I assure my hon. Friend that those conservation measures are being considered by the Department of Energy and by my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of support by the Government of the four different wave energy systems now in course of experimentation in the United Kingdom.

The level of support for wave energy research in this financial year is expected to be about £ 3-5 million. Work in earlier years on the four original devices, together with more recent inventions, has led to the evolution of more cost-effective designs on which future support will be concentrated.

As there is a massive over-capacity in electrical generating plant and as the CEGB is continually revising down its demand, should we not take this splendid opportunity to invest in this alternative source instead of proceeding with an idiotic nuclear programme?

I have drawn attention to the fact that £ 3-5 million is being invested this year, as opposed to the £ 900,000 that was invested when the programme started in 1977-78. The Government therefore recognise the importance of investing in such an important area.

What proportion of that investment is being laid out in Northern Ireland?

I would hesitate to answer without having been given notice, but I believe that about £ 40,000-plus will go to the project at Queen's university, Belfast. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman details later.

As the Minister knows that informed opinion holds that research and development in wave energy have good prospects, will he give an assurance that that research and development programme will not suffer because of the Government's constraints on public expenditure?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The potential size of the resource—I stress the word "potential"—relates to 1,000 kilometres of usable coastal waters. At the most, that might create the equivalent of 30 million tonnes of coal. In the long term, it is a potentially viable source of energy. Projects have not been denied because of public expenditure constraints. Obviously, we are concerned about the sensible, wise and rational use of valuable public money.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that the energy policy objectives agreed at the Venice summit can be achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement upon the outcome of the Venice summit in relation to United Kingdom energy policy.

It will be of major importance to the industrialised world that the commitments undertaken at the Venice summit to reduce dependence on oil are achieved, and I am confident that, with the full co-operation of all concerned, they will be. The United Kingdom has already made substantial progress, and we shall play our full part in meeting the summit's objectives.

Although I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, will he give an assurance that the Government will regard the nuclear industry and the coal industry as complementary rather than as being in opposition to one another?

That is the correct way of viewing them.

Will not a commitment to less dependence on oil involve much greater effort to ensure that less energy is wasted? Are the Government satisfied that we can play our part as long as we set specific targets for energy conservation—as other Western countries do—with specific programmes and incentives for achieving them?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and substantial amounts of energy are being conserved. As regards new methods, such as the combined generation of heat and power, and district heating—in which my hon. Friend has played a leading role and has taken great interest—we are making good progress. Recently, 13 local authorities showed interest in participating in the current Government programme for developing CHP.

Has the Secretary of State had discussions since the Venice summit with the Minister of Transport, to encourage him to find money for the electrification of British Rail and to divert as much freight traffic to the railways as many of our international competitors do?

I have had no specific discussions since the Venice summit, but the Government have been considering electrification. Discussions were held before the Venice summit.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that a Community oil or energy levy would help the policy objectives of both Venice summits?

I am doubtful about that. It would have a distorting effect on world prices. It would also create grave difficulties in terms of checking what oil and oil products go in and out of the Community. That idea has been put forward by the Community and is being studied. However, I foresee grave difficulties.

Has the Secretary of State agreed to the proposal made by the International Energy Agency, and rejected by the previous Labour Government to lift all restrictions on trade in coal? Secondly, have we agreed to increase our own depletion of North Sea oil in order to help the Community to reduce its dependence on imported oil from the OPEC countries?

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second question is "No." I think that I have answered that question before. The position remains as I then described it. There are no restrictions on trade in coal, nor have we discussed any such restrictions. If the right hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, perhaps he will take it up with me afterwards. At present, I can think of no such restrictions.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the number of meals served in (a) the Members' and (b) the Strangers' Dining Rooms in May and June; how this compares with the numbers for the corresponding months in 1978 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, I will publish the figures in the Official Report. The total number of meals served depends upon the number of days the House sits, and to some extent on the business of the House. The figures show no significant variation in the average number of meals served each sitting day as between the three years.

As that answer seems to show that while the price of meals has almost doubled consumption has remained static, should not the right hon. Gentleman think about reviewing the Government's policies on market forces, or would this cause him to double the price of meals yet again?

That is an interesting general economic point. I shall leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the other Chancellor—to unwind that conundrum. The figures show that we have pitched prices about right. That enables the Catering Department, of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished ornament, to show a reasonable profit. At the same time it enables hon. Members not to starve.

As the right hon. Gentleman intends to publish the figures in the Official Report, will he go one step further and include the figures for the Press Gallery and for those who write about exorbitant charges and so on? We should like to know what the press is doing about that.

I understand that the press is not starving either. As part of the exercise, Press Gallery prices have been brought fully into line with those prevailing in other parts of the House. A special £ 1 surcharge has been introduced for guests in the Press Dining Room, so that it is equal shares of misery.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many seats are available in the Strangers' and Press Galleries, respectively.

There are 157 seats in the Strangers' Gallery and 154 seats in the Upper and Lower Reporters' Galleries.

As there seems to be no shortage of seats in the Press Gallery, how does my right hon. Friend justify the continuing monopoly that journalists enjoy on the reporting of our proceedings? Is he aware that when he told me on 23 June that any relaxation of the rules governing admission to the Strangers' Gallery would result in unofficial reporting, many of us were tempted to retort "So what?" Will he refer this matter to the appropriate Committee as soon as possible?

I know that my hon. Friend has not been satisfied with the replies that he has received about unofficial note-taking. As regards the press, there must be a certain number of seats that are not taken up at any given moment. They must be available to the press. I reduced the number of seats allocated to the overseas press at the beginning of the Session. However, my hon. Friend clearly is not satisfied, and I shall ask the appropriate Committee to consider that point. I hope that my hon. Friend will be pacified.

In the light of the big and proper demand for the public to observe and hear our proceedings, why are 50 or 60 or more seats vacant at Question Time every day? Can we not have a more sensible allocation of tickets to prevent that from happening?

It is up to individual Members. I have done everything that I can to encourage individual Members who are not using their allocations to surrender their tickets in time for them to be taken up by other Members. That is printed on the tickets.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for Question Time.

These are matters for the House. Our procedures at Question Time have, however, been the subject of regular review by Committees of the House over past years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter of Prime Minister's Question Time? As many hon. Members put down questions which are not answered, is there not a case for considering an extension of 10 or 15 minutes to the time during which the Prime Minister answers questions?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be delighted to have a further period for answering questions, because she always scores so successfully against the Leader of the Opposition and the various deputies who appear from time to time. We had a report on this matter in 1977. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that she will be happy to retain questions which are addressed to her, but nearly all the questions addressed to her now are open questions.

I wonder whether it would be a helpful idea if in future the first three specific questions to the Prime Minister were always asked as a matter of course before going on to the open questions. In that way, if hon. Members wanted to ask the Prime Minister specific questions, the ballot might ensure that they had the ability to do so.

That is an interesting and characteristically constructive suggestion by my hon. Friend. I shall certainly consider it.

In view of the interest in the country in the views of the Opposition, could we have a quarter of an hour a month during which the Leader of the Opposition could answer questions from Conservative Members?

That is another interesting suggestion, and I shall ponder it.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the report of the inter-party talks on the arrangement of Scottish parliamentary business.

I hope that it will be possible to make this report available before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

In view of the indecent haste with which the Government repealed the Scotland Act more than a year ago, why are they taking so long to come out with proposals for dealing with Scottish parliamentary business? If the Government are afraid of genuine devolution for Scotland, will they give more powers to the Scottish Grand Committee, where the membership more accurately reflects the way that the people of Scotland voted in the general election?

The delay has nothing to do with the Government. We have sent out the copies of the report and are awaiting the responses of the participants in the talks. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be censorious, he should censor the other participants, not the Government's representative.

asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what conditions on expenditure the Commission lays down for Select Committees travelling within the United Kingdom.

The Commission has recently decided that Select Committees may not incur expenditure for the holding of purely deliberative meetings outside Westminster without the express approval of the Commission. For other visits within the United Kingdom no formal conditions have needed to be imposed by the Commission.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that lucid reply. Is he aware that the Select Committee on education, science and arts is grateful for the Commission's recent permission to deliberate outside the Houe of Commons, because there is a danger that Select Committees spend so much time gathering evidence that they have no time to think about it? Is he further aware that this sensible innovation should be allowed to develop and not be stopped by the Commission?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the work of the Commission. The amount of money in the Estimates limits the expenditure. It would be unfair if, in the main, we did not ensure that money was spent on enabling Committees to go outside the House only for the purpose of hearing witnesses.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members are getting concerned about the proliferation and pretensions of some Select Committees and consider that their travelling should be kept to a minimum?

If Select Committees are to do their duty—I hope that they can—this will necessarily entail more expenditure.