asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the research and development budget of his Department is devoted to research into alternative sources of energy.

The Department's expenditure on research and development programmes in renewable forms of energy is expected to be about £11 million this year, some 30 per cent. of the Chief Scientist's budget.

Does my hon. Friend think that more should be spent on research into alternative sources of energy? If Britain cannot afford to do so on its own, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for a substantial expansion of the EEC programme?

When considering whether more money should be spent, one should remember that the sum being spent has to be put in the context of the total spending on energy supply industries throughout the United Kingdom, which are some of the major investors in energy supply throughout the Community. Clearly, we expect to get our juste retour through the Community's new four-year alternative budget.

The Minister must be aware that there is a great deal of public interest in alternative sources of energy. Is he prepared to tell the House the delays that his Department has estimated in the alternative research programmes—which are varied and many—as a consequence of a lack of funding? I think that the Government should tell us.

I reject any suggestion that there is delay caused by a lack of funding. The renewable energy research expenditure has until now been essentially pure research. There has been no delay caused by a lack of funds. Total expenditure, including that of the nationalised industries, on energy research and development this year in the United Kingdom will be about £374·6 million. Non-nuclear expenditure will be £159·4 million, or 43 per cent. of the total.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress in energy conservation, with particular reference to petroleum in motor vehicles.

Total primary energy consumption for the six month period March to August was about 8 per cent. below the level of last year. Oil consumption was down by 12 per cent.; petrol consumption was down by 0·1 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures are to be warmly welcomed, especially the belated changing trend in petrol consumption? Does he agree that British Leyland deserves the thanks of the nation for producing the Metro, with its superb increased performance in miles per gallon?

It would be well for us all to compliment the Metro and to wish it well. It would be right and proper, in an impartial sense, to wish well to all fuel-efficient vehicles produced in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister agree that one reason why there has been a reduction in energy consumption is the recession, and not conservation? Is it not unwise for the Government to charge British industry the world price for North Sea oil? Would it not be better to charge a lower price and have a two-tier system? Although that might not lead to energy conservation, it might enable British industry to compete more effectively with its overseas competitors.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you prefer Ministers to answer one question at a time. My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is legitimate and fair to say that the recession is a factor in the reduction in energy consumption, but, equally, I do not think that anyone would deny that there has been considerable success in energy conservation programmes. I stress, as I always try to do from the Dispatch Box when given the opportunity, that these are long-term programmes that will have a long-term impact. We should not seek short-term instant results.

Are the Government aware that the Labour Party also welcomes the Mini Metro? As the Government are so enthusiastic about the way in which the Mini Metro saves money, will they get the Ministry of Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of Energy to do something about vehicle excise duty, so that the bigger gas-guzzling cars pay more tax? We proposed that in our manifesto, but the Government dropped the idea.

I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's words are conveyed to the Departments to which they are addressed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the progress made by the United Kingdom's European Economic Community partners towards an economic price for energy.

European Community countries agreed at the Council of Energy Ministers on 13 May last on the pursuit of economic pricing for energy supplies. In practice most members have been allowing prices to climb to economic levels for some time past. Where there is evidence that other countries are unfairly subsidising their industries' energy prices, the Government have not hesitated, and will not hesitate, to take this up with the Commission, as we have done in the case of Dutch gas to horticulture.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts so far, but is he aware that industry is anxious because it is not competing on equal terms with its counterparts in the EEC as regards energy prices? Is he also aware that that anxiety is exacerbated because we have our own natural resources, whereas many of our EEC partners do not? Does my right hon. Friend further accept that during a recession it is nonsense to be required to pay more for fuel prices when demand is declining?

Having natural resources is one thing; achieving the maximum efficiency, extraction and distribution in our fuel supply industries is another. It is an aim to which the Government are dedicated. I recognise the widespread concern and complaints, and the Government have been looking into them in detail. In addition, we have asked the Confederation of British Industry to make comparisons, to examine them and to bring forward details. I keenly await those details.

Does economic pricing mean prices that cover production costs, or market prices? If so, which market?

Economic pricing for oil and gas means market prices, which are world market prices. As regards coal and electricity, it means pricing according to long-run marginal costs.

Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's point about the horticultural situation, is he aware that many horticulturists have been awaiting recognition of their particular problems vis-a-vis the Dutch, and that they earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise the exceptional circumstances in which they find themselves? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that they hope that he will make some arrangements to enable them to compete with Dutch producers while the argument with the Dutch is sorted out within the framework of the EEC? Has my right hon. Friend anything to say that will help them?

The difficulties of that industry are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider. However, this issue has gone to the Commission for consideration, and the Commission has pressed the Dutch Government and Dutch industry. I understand that the matter will be considered by the European Court of Justice.

As the Government refuse to cut interest rates and to act on the exchange rate, how can they continue to justify the fact that our industry is paying much higher energy prices than are most other Community countries, that firms are going out of business and that people are being laid off work because our energy prices make our products uncompetitive? When will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House about freeing the coal, electricity and gas boards so that they can negotiate much lower tariffs for our major industrial users?

The right hon. Gentleman has made some generalisations, which he must sustain. The coal industry is straining to be competitive within the existing strategy. As regards coal and electricity, I believe that it will succeed and that it is making great strides towards that end. Electricity costs depend greatly on coal costs, and on the efficiency of the industry. At present the industry is being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Oil prices are world market prices, and are priced at competitive international prices throughout Europe. Earlier in the year, the British Gas Corporation increased prices to gas/oil levels at a faster rate than did some of our neighbours. However, in response to market changes it reduced the rate at which prices were being increased in the summer by about 25 per cent. for renewed firm contracts. Meanwhile, some continental gas suppliers have been putting up prices at a faster rate. to the same level and beyond. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts and bring forward specific details before making such generalisations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board about pit closures.

Pit closures are matters for the National Coal Board to deal with in consultation with the unions according to the agreed procedures.

As a result of the substantial reduction in coal sales, will my hon. Friend reconsider part of the investment programme, such as the Vale of Belvoir? Will he redeploy some of the moneys on the marketing side of the business, particularly for fluidised bed combustor? Will he ensure that the miners do not claim an unreasonable pay increase as that will lead to further pit closures?

With respect to my hon. Friend's great experience on energy issues, his questions should be addressed to the National Coal Board. It is not the Government's function to manage the industry. It is our function to set the overall financial limits, and the NCB decides how to fulfil the agreed strategy within those limits.

If the hon. Gentleman holds consultations with the chairman of the NCB, will he ensure that no pits with known reserves are closed? In addition, will he make financial arrangements with the coal board so that coal from existing stocks can be used, rather than imports?

The NCB decides such matters. I should have thought that those who want to ensure the long-term success of the coal industry would welcome the fact that, unlike many of our industries, the coal industry is more than 95 per cent. self-sufficient, even in this difficult year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that vast sums of money are being = spent on stockpiling un- sold coal? Will he hold urgent talks with the chairman of the NCB on the question of reducing coal prices, rather than raising them? Does my hon. Friend accept that that will help to stimulate electricity demand and so remove some of the unfair competition that this country faces from its competitors in the EEC and elsewhere?

Again, my hon. Friend invites me to make subjective decisions about the management of individual nationalised industries. The framework that the Government established for the coal board is robust enough to take the inevitable strains associated with short-term changes in supply and demand, and thus to stay within the Government's external financial limits, which flow annually from our four-year coal strategy.

The Minister is responsible for the coal industry, but he has delegated responsibility for it. Will he ignore any predatory cries—from whatever quarter—for a pit closure programme? Does he agree that it would be a form of energy lunacy to contract the coal industry, when there is political uncertainty and instability in the Middle East?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments, but the coal strategy is for the long-term success of our domestic coal industry. Massive investment, in excess of £800 million a year, is being made in the industry. That is the strategy for a successful industry, not one in decline.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring forward legislation to alter the statutory provisions relating to gas production so as to enable private companies to produce gas from the North Sea for resale to third parties in the United Kingdom for use as fuel.

There is already scope under section 8 of the Energy Act 1976 for North Sea gas to be supplied direct to third parties for use as fuel.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry suffers from a serious shortage of gas? Does he agree that the best way to accelerate gas production is to break the monopoly of purchase right, now enjoyed by the British Gas Corporation, and to allow private companies to produce and sell gas direct to industry?

My hon. Friend is correct. The industry is facing an excessive demand for the short-term supply of gas, arising from the rush of industrial customers away from oil and into gas. This has created intense strain and dragged prices up. The Chemical Industries Association has put certain suggestions to my Department for greater access by industrial consumers direct to the North Sea. In fact, such consumers have some access already for feedstock purposes and in one case for fuel purposes also. I have said that the Department will consider these representations.

Is the Minister aware that he must be very careful about the way in which he tackles the issue of gas in the northern and southern sectors of the North Sea? Is he aware also that it is vital to ensure that firms and industries already established in the United Kingdom benefit, particularly from the ethane that will come ashore as a result of the gas-gathering system?

The hon. Gentleman raises questions about the gas-gathering system which do not arise directly from this question. However, I recognise that difficult decisions will have to be taken by myself and my Department as well as by other parties concerned. We are closely examining the matter with a view to reaching early decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total capital cost to date of the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme, including money spent on stations not yet in operation.

I am advised by the CEGB that the total capital cost to date of its existing advanced gas-cooled reactor programme was £1,100 million at 31 March 1980—this figure aggregates expenditure incurred at historic cost price levels; it excludes the cost of initial nuclear fuel and interest during construction. In addition, £28 million was spent on Heysham II up to March 1980.

Can the Minister explain how he or the CEGB arrived at those figures, when in August 1979 the CEGB told me in answer to a letter that the total cost was £1,349 million?

Perhaps the hon. Member will send me the letter, and I will then attempt to reconcile the figures for him. I cannot comment any further.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is right to go ahead with ordering two more AGRs of an unproven reactor system? Should he not wait at least until we have a realistic estimate of the costs, reliability and the length of time the reactors will take to build?

My hon. Friend refers to these reactors as unproven, but of course we have the experience of Hinckley. That experience shows generation costs of 1·35p per kilowatt hour, which compares extremely favourably with electricity produced from the first half of Drax, at 1·52p per kilowatt hour. I assure my hon. Friend that the cost estimates for the AGR have been examined very rigorously, and some of that evidence was placed before the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what excess of electricity generating capacity is likely to arise in 1983 if the forecast by the Electricity Council of a simultaneous maximum demand of 46·2 GW for 1982–83 proves correct.

I am advised by the CEGB that it expects the declared net capability of the system in the winter of 1982–83 to be 59·6 GW, resulting in a margin of capacity of 29 per cent. This figure is, however, dependent on the rate of commissioning new plant and decommissioning old plant in the meantime.

As we already have about 10 GW more in the pipeline than is currently on stream, and as this will produce over and above what the Minister has said will be excess capacity, what is the point of a huge nuclear programme to produce electricity which, clearly, will not be required?

The hon. Member has heard the questions that have already been put at Question Time today about energy costs. The point of placing new orders for new plant is to get competitive electricity. All the evidence that we have is that nuclear electricity will be competitive, and that is why we wish to replace old expensive plants with cheaper modern nuclear ones.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the 28 per cent. planning margin, as used by the CEGB, is realistic? Does he not think that it might lead us to invest too much in electricity generating plant capacity?

This is the industry's judgment of what is required to guarantee security of supply. My hon. Friend will know that during the winter before last we came within 1 GW of an interruption to supply. When my hon. Friend quotes 28 per cent., he should allow for the outages of plant due to malfunctioning. The estimate is that we could come within 3 per cent. at peak periods.

If there is 29 per cent. excess capacity, and if modern nuclear power stations are to replace the old ones, how many pit closures will there be in 1982–83?

I do not think that arises out of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now make a statement on his progress in improving safety in the North Sea, in the light of the Burgoyne committee report, and the Norwegian inquiry into the loss of the Alexander Kielland.

I shall make a detailed statement on the Government's response to the Burgoyne committee report in opening the debate which we are due to have on 6 November. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a summary of the Government's response to all the recommendations in the report.

As well as a response in the Library to the recommendations, will the Minister place in the Library a response to the note of dissent by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller, the trade union representatives on Burgoyne, who argued very convincingly that the health and safety aspects should not be vested in the sponsoring Department?

I hope that the hon. Member will attend our debate on 6 November, when he will have the opportunity to make his point.

Will the Minister reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend? Does he not feel that it is wrong that the Department of Energy should retain its supervision over offshore oil in this respect? It is the only Government Department to do so. All other Government Departments have had their powers vested in the Health and Safety Commission.

These points will rightly be dealt with when we have our debate, and the House will not wish me to take time now in dealing with them.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question.")

Will the Minister answer the question that I put to him—[Interruption.]

Order. Occasionally—in fact very occasionally—I call an hon. Member to ask a second supplementary question. Too often it is a Minister from the Front Bench. Today I am calling an hon. Member from the Back Bench.

Will the Minister put into the Library, before the debate on Thursday, a response to the note of dissent by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller, the trade union representatives, who argued that the health and safety aspects should not be vested in the sponsoring Department? This is a matter of great consequence.

I repeat that this Matter will be dealt with fully during the debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he anticipates the United Kingdom will be an exporter of oil.

The United Kingdom has exported some oil for a number of years, but for the last few months production has exceeded consumption so that we have become a net exporter. For some time ahead, production and consumption will be finely balanced with monthly production, except perhaps during the winter, exceeding consumption.

Can the Minister assure the House and the country that if the Straits of Hormuz are blocked we shall still have enough oil available for this country's needs?

It would be difficult for anyone to anticipate the world oil supply in the event of such an action. There is no way in which this country can divorce itself from the problems of other parts of the world. At present it appears that we shall survive any immediate threat.

Does the Minister not realise that, in addition to worry over the export of oil, it is feared that there will be loss of opportunities caused by the export of petrochemicals? Will he give an assurance that one of the intentions of his Department will be to secure petrochemical production in Scotland and that, if necessary, he will be prepared to consider giving a rebate on royalties or reducing petroleum revenue tax, to allow cheaper feedstock to be made available to encourage petrochemical companies to establish or expand in Scotland?

Certainly it will be the intention of the Department of Energy to ensure that the highest possible amount of petrochemical development takes place in the United Kingdom. It seems likely that Scotland will have its share of benefits in that case.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation about the importing of coking coal in 1981.

It is for the BSC to arrange its own coal supplies after discussions with the NCB. I have not been involved in these discussions, though I have been kept informed of developments.

Is the Minister aware that the agreement reached for 1981 between the NCB and BSC includes the purchase by the NCB of 1 million tons from pits in the North-East? Is he satisfied with that arrangement? Is he further aware that the coking coal involved necessitates a subsidy from the NCB of £14 per ton? Should not that money come from the Government, as is the case with our competitors?

To answer the first part of the question would, as I said earlier, require me to be involved in the detailed management of the industry, which is not my function. The agreement provides for both organisations to be free to operate commercially and to reach agreements. The agreement announced was successful for both sides of the industry, as opposed to the taxpayer.

Do I take it from that answer that BSC has commercial freedom to purchase its coking coal from the cheapest source?

As the Government have made clear on many occasions, nationalised industries are free to pursue their commercial interests. BSC has negotiated an arrangement, the details of which are commercially confidential, and it is pursuing further negotiations concerning a longer period. Yes, the BSC has commercial freedom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet National Coal Board chiefs regarding coal stocks; and if he will make a statement.

I keep in close touch with the NCB, but have no specific plans for a meeting on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that the latest figures suggest that about 36 million tonnes of coal are at the pit top and that we are rapidly reaching the figure that caused the tragic pit closures in the 1950s and 1960s? Does he accept that because of the industrial recession caused by this Government we shall be back on the merry-go-round of pit closures unless more subsidies are given for stocking coal and for coal generally, similar to those given by our Continental competitors, which will put an end to coal imports, which stand at about 6 million tonnes this year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such measures would ensure a healthy and viable coal industry into the 1980s?

Facts are more interesting than opinions. Stocks are below the 1978 level and are not much different from the 10-year running average. There are 15·1 million tonnes at pitheads and 19·2 million tonnes at power stations, not 36 million tonnes. In relation to imports, we should remember that about 87 per cent. of the modest imports to the United Kingdom come from Australia and the United States, and not from those countries that seek to subsidise their domestic coal industries.

Can my hon. Friend put the imports into perspective? What is the relationship between our coal imports and exports?

That is an interesting point. We export approximately 3 million tonnes of coal, compared with the expected total imports for 1980–81 of 8 million to 9 million tonnes, which is a 6 million tonnes excess of imports over exports. In the first six months of the year the three countries on the Continent that are heavily subsidising their coal industries, France, Belgium and West Germany, exported 34,000 tonnes of coal to us, whereas we exported 404,000 tonnes to them.

When next the Minister meets the NCB, will he remember that the miners were promised that they would not become victims of a fluctuating market? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that stocks of coal can be an appreciating as well as depreciating asset?

I take the hon. Gentleman's last point. We should remember that, despite increased imports this year, which were decided on after the bad winter of 1978–79, and the accelerated coalburn decided on by the previous Government, we are still looking to 95 per cent.-plus domestic self-sufficiency, moving to between 96 and 97 per cent. over the next few years. All those interested in coal's long-term future should welcome that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has considered what terms of reference he will give to the inspector conducting the public inquiry for the first pressurised water reactor, in the event if its being granted safety clearance by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

No decision has been taken, but my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that the inquiry will be full and thorough.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public inquiry will be unusual, because it cannot take place unless and until the pressurised water reactor has been given qualified approval by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate? Does he accept that it will undermine the authority and standing of the inspectorate if its findings are able to be overruled at the inquiry?

In a sense, that is right. Preliminary safety work has to be done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which has an enormous job. It is having a tremendous burden of work put on it.

What is the target date for the completion of the public inquiry?

I do not have a date for completion, but it is the Government's intention and belief that we shall be in a position to start the inquiry in 1982.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the British National Oil Corporation.

It is the Government's intention to give the British public an opportunity to share the benefits of the nation's oil wealth through the creation of a revenue bond scheme linked to the fortunes of specified BNOC fields in the North Sea. Details of the scheme and its timing will be announced soon. We also propose that the forthcoming legislation on the future of the corporation should contain powers to enable the public to have a direct equity stake in BNOC's North Sea business.

I welcome that statement, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government Benches regret that the Government will not be selling equity in BNOC in the immediate future? Why is that?

The revenue bonds will make available a stake in the fortunes of the North Sea to thousands of people who do not normally deal in stocks and shares. I hope that the whole House will welcome that. With regard to a minority equity stake, while the Government believe that it is necessary to keep control of BNOC, we intend to take those powers although there are considerable complexities to be unravelled before such powers can be put into practice. I look forward to my hon. Friend's support when we bring such measures before the House.

What control or influence over the policy and management of the corporation will the owners of the bonds as such be given?

The owners of the bonds will not have an ownership stake in the corporation, but they will share in the risks and revenue of the North Sea. I do not see anything against the idea of thousands of families sharing in those risks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although many of us welcome the cautious and measured way in which the Government have approached the matter, we want the units available in the bonds to be as small as possible in order to make a reality of popular capitalism?

Those views will be taken into account. It is desirable to spread the involvement of popular capitalism. I understand the views of Labour Members and their extreme hostility to wider ownership in any form.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he needs to issue "granny bonds" as the price of a U-turn we shall be happy for as many as possible to be issued? However, does he realise that if he goes ahead with legislation to introduce a private equity stake in BNOC he will open up for debate all the major questions of principle and of great international importance relating to the United Kingdom continental shelf? In addition, doing that simply as a fig leaf to placate some of his discontented Back Benchers will be playing around with one of the most central issues of energy policy in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, it will be opposed, and opposed vigorously, and it will do no good to our national interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman also let us know whether he intends to allow the BNOC to develop the Clyde oilfield, or whether he intends to interfere in the development of that field?

No decision has been made on the Clyde development, although I have indicated that as part of our depletion policy there will be delays on developments in certain cases. As to the right hon. Gentleman's lecture on North Sea oil policy, I suggest that he reserves that for the debates that we shall have in the House. I think that he is aiming at the wrong target. If there were a proposal to do away with Government control of the BNOC, some of the right hon. Gentleman's worries might be outstanding. As it is, our proposals do not raise the worries on which he has lectured us, though no doubt we shall hear that lecture again.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet leaders of British industry to consider comparison of energy prices in the United Kingdom and in countries which are major competitors of the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir. When I met the CBI representatives last week they told me that it would be a few weeks yet before their report on comparative international energy prices would be ready.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the share of energy costs in industry's total costs is far more significant than he seemed to recognise in the House before the recess? He may not have seen the total figures, but is he aware of the evidence compiled jointly by the public and private sectors of the steel industry, which demonstrates that we pay far more heavily for steel than do our European competitors? Does not that evidence more than justify the U-turn that everyone, apart from the Secretary of State and half his colleagues in the Cabinet, perceives to be necessary?

For energy-intensive industries, energy is, by definition, a substantial cost. As we have moved into an era of high-priced energy all over the world, industries that use a lot of energy and cannot employ devices for greater energy efficiency without major new investment obviously face considerable difficulties. No one can question that. At my request, the electricity supply industry is reviewing the whole bulk supply tariff system. That will cover the position of large users. Overall on electricity supply, the CM has told me in preliminary talks that it does not think that there are major worries in comparison with other European competitors. Of course, I recognise that comparisons with North America are a different thing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although his Department may consider United States' prices to be another matter, they are a strong competition to British industry? May we have an assurance that when we have a response to the CBI report it will take into consideration the energy and fuel prices in the United States?

My hon. Friend and I do not have to await the CBI report for me to recognise the extreme seriousness of the American and Canadian subsidised oil and gas prices, which are causing major damage to the whole of Europe—it is a Europe-wide problem—and exacerbating world energy difficulties. My right hon. Friends and I have been pressing the American and Canadian Governments continually for some time, and we intend to go on doing so with increased vigour, because these are serious and damaging policies for the whole of Europe.

When the British part of the figures has been prepared, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the figures comparing the AGR production costs of electricity with coal-fired production costs include an estimate for the three much-delayed stations, which have not worked and which have cost so much, and are not based only on the rather misleading and fraudulent figures of the one station that the CEGB has managed to get to work?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to get in a point that is related to another question. Other nations have a larger nuclear proportion in their electricity supply systems, and as nuclear electricity has so far proved cheaper that is a considerable advantage to those other countries. That makes the case for a larger nuclear element in our electricity supply.

If the CBI demonstrates that particularly the heavy energy using industries are bearing a much heavier energy cost than our Continental competitors—a fact that my right hon. Friend seems consistently to have denied—what powers have the Government to intervene, and how quickly will they intervene in what is an increasingly urgent matter, particularly for the steel, paper and board and other similar industries?

My hon. Friend is not correct in saying that the facts have been consistently denied. I have always recognised that in certain energy-intensive industries there are particular problems. We are waiting to receive from the CBI the evidence of specific firms—not even industries generally—that are in difficulties. It appears that industrial gas prices in Continental Europe are moving ahead fast. Indeed, they are moving ahead of British prices. There have been complaints about oil product prices in the United Kingdom market, and when I have more specific details I shall raise the matter again, as I have already, with the oil industries to find out whether they can maintain fully competitive prices for their refined oil products. I understand that for most oil products they are competitive, though there may be some higher prices here for heavy fuel oil.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can now arrange a date for work to begin on repairing, restoring and cleaning the Palace of Westminster, and in particular to ensure the safety of the structure.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the Services Committee's fourth report—1979–80—of the survey of the stonework. He has agreed that urgent repair work should go ahead. The timing of a major stone cleaning and repair programme depends on the availability of funds.

Is it not poor economy to allow the Palace of Westminster to continue to decay, when every year that goes by multiplies the cost of putting it right? When will the right hon. Gentleman conclude his consideration of the Select Committee's report and start work?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am not responsible for the programme. Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

What about the arts?

It is not a matter of arts. It is a matter of the structure of the building. All apparently dangerous stonework in areas in regular use has been removed, and the work already approved by my right hon. Friend who has responsibility in this matter should ensure that the external structure is safe.

Does my right hon. Friend look in occasionally on the Palace of Westminster during recesses? If he does, does he agree that one often finds the whole place being torn up by the roots? Is it not about time that our unfortunate constituents who are taxpayers should be stopped from being taken to the cleaners every time we leave this place? Should not the redecoration and reorganisation that occurs every time we go into recess also be put into recess?

I shall pass on that observation to the appropriate quarter, but a certain amount of renovation for wear and tear, particularly in places such as the Division Lobbies and the Staircases, is necessary.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the provision of accommodation for the new Select Committees.

Yes. Five additional Committee Rooms were brought into use in April last.

Does my right hon Friend agree that, even allowing for the increased number of Committee Rooms, the pressure of Select Committee meetings on the meetings of Back-Bench groups on both sides of the House is causing considerable annoyance, because of the cancellation at short notice of meetings in rooms that have been booked? What will he do about it?

As we all know, there is a general shortage of accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. One has to arrange a system of priorities within limited resources. Of course, the ultimate solution is the provision of a new building, but I am afraid that that is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the problem, which has been raised with him right from the beginning of this Parliament, of the conditions under which many right hon. and hon. Members, especially on the Opposition side, have to work in this House? They are worse than many workers in industry have to put up with, and that is saying a lot. If conditions of this kind operated outside in private industry, action would be taken by the work force. I ask the Leader of the House to look into this matter and to see that conditions are made tolerable. He will he aware that there are as many as 12 of us sitting in passages trying to do our work.

That is another aspect of the general problem to which I referred. However, I think that there are disadvantages in every hon. Member being in a hermetically sealed room by himself. For many years I occupied a desk in a passage, and I found that I knew more about what was going on in the House then than I do now.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will now introduce proposals for changing the hours of sitting of the House.

No, Sir. The Procedure Committee recommended against any radical reorganisation of our hours of sitting. I believe that the debate last year when the House considered this section of the Committee's report showed that this view reflected the general opinion of the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make some firm recommendation himself and not keep shuffling the matter on to the Procedure Committee, although I take the point that that Committee must have a view? Does he consider that we conduct our affairs in the most efficient way? Why does he think that every other Parliament in the Western world is able to conduct its affairs in normal working hours?

The Procedure Committee has considered this matter, and I gave the House an opportunity to put into operation the principal change that was recommended, which was about Friday morning sittings, and the House passed that. As long as there is a substantial body of hon. Members, who are opposed, for example, to morning sittings. I do not think that it is possible for them to be enforced against hon. Members' wishes.

Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of Friday morning sittings as they affect Government statements? Does he agree that the experiment of interrupting the proceedings at 11 o'clock for Government statements is not satisfactory either to Ministers or to hon. Members, and that it would be better if the House met at 10 o'clock, if 9.30 be too early for Ministers, when perhaps statements could be made more easily?

The purpose of interrupting the proceedings at 11 o'clock is not for the convenience of Ministers. It is for the convenience of hon. Members, especially with Private Notice Questions, and so on, so that they may have time. I shall consider my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, but I doubt whether it would be satisfactory. I think that it would create more problems than it would solve.

Will the Leader of the House look at the Sessional arrangements? Does he realise that the House rose this year on 8 August and that children of Scottish Members, including my own, went back to school on 13 August? Does he agree that for those hon. Members who are away from home for most of the year it is at least desirable that the House should so arrange its business that they manage to see their children?

Yes. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is partly in my hands, I agree. I hope that we shall have a lighter legislative Session. But it is also in the hands of hon. Members. I hope that they will facilitate the legislation that the Government produce.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals for the televising of the proceedings of the House.

This is a House rather than a Government matter. If it were the general wish of hon. Members to consider this question again, I hope it would be possible to arrange for a further debate on the issue.

Is the Leader of the House aware that in each of the last four Parliaments there was at least one major debate on this principle? As this Parliament is now drawing to the evening of its days, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, before this Parliament comes to the end of its days, we shall have a major debate on this principle?

I should have thought that this Parliament was in the first flush of dawn rather than in the last rays of the setting sun. I have indicated in what I have said to the hon. Gentleman that if there is a clear demonstration that a large number of hon. Members wish this to be discussed again we shall provide time for a debate.

Before considering televising Parliament, should not the House consider whether the sound broadcasting of Parliament has been a failure or a success? To assess that, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the publication of figures showing the total amount of sound broadcasting that takes place and the total cost to all the parties involved?

I shall look into those questions. It is my opinion—and there may be other opinions in the House—that, on the whole, the sound broadcasting of our proceedings has been a success and has given people listening to it a much better idea of the House of Commons than they had before.

asked the Paymaster General if he has been satisfied with the effects of Government publicity arrangements during the summer adjournment.

Yes. I am satisfied that Ministers have taken every opportunity during the Summer Recess to explain Government policies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the Summer Recess clear evidence became available that the connection between excessive wage settlements and unemployment began to get through to those working on the shop floor?

Yes, Sir. There is clear evidence that a number of groups of workers, in the engineering industries especially, understand that excessive wage settlements lead to a loss of jobs. Recent opinion polls also show that a great majority of British workers understand that. I am satisfied that it is due partly to the activity of Ministers in explaining the situation that the change in opinion has come about.

Has the Paymaster General any estimate of how many moles there are in the various Government Departments? If he cannot tell us. will he admit that it is a secret?

I do not think that we have as many moles as there are in the Labour Party during the leadership election.

During the Summer Recess my right hon. Friend let it be known through the press that he was about to launch a massive propaganda campaign on the subject of Europe. If he intends to do that, will he restrict himself to the facts about Europe, rather than trying to sell the public an unsaleable product?

I did not let anything of the sort be known. The purpose of the Government information service, on this as on all other subjects, is to provide factual information and nothing else.

Does the right hon. Gentleman attribute, for example, the enthusiastic support of the CBI for Government policies to the merits of the policies themselves, or to his own brilliance as a publicity monger?

Unlike some Governments, this Government do not try to control the opinions or the actions of private industry. The CBI is entitled to its views, and no doubt it will see the light in time.

asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the procedures adopted by the Government information service in dealing with the unauthorised disclosure of official documents.

Investigation of cases of disclosure of information is not a matter for the Government information service. It is normally the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Minister in charge of the Department in which the leak occurs.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the first leaked document, which dealt with the Government's Common Market propaganda campaign, has been reviewed in the light of the Conservative Conference decision, by a 2 to 1 majority, that the Government should concentrate on the facts and not just on the alleged advantages? In this connection, will he learn from the sad experience of the Labour Party and do all in his power to avoid a damaging confrontation between the conference and the parliamentary leadership?

I have said already that the purpose of the Government information service in respect of Europe is to make clear to the British people the economic effects. I am satisfied that if the Labour Party wishes to have a confrontation at the next election on the subject of withdrawal from Europe, the good sense of the British people will defeat it even more handsomely than would otherwise be the case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the distinction between fact and fiction in relation to the sale of council houses? Is it not clear that in relation to council housing the Government have been using the Government propaganda machine for party purposes? Is it not time that that was stopped? If the Tory party wishes to propagate its ideas it should do so, but not by using Government machinery.

No, Sir. I regard that as a most extraordinary idea. What the Department of the Environment's publicity campaign has been doing is simply to inform the British people—

No, it has not. It has gone beyond that.

—not of Conservative propaganda, but of the contents of an Act of Parliament that the House has passed.