asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether any studies are being made by his Department and the Central Electricity Generating Board to see what financial savings can be made by re-planting existing power stations when they reach the end of their planned life rather than replacing them with completely new power stations.

I am advised by the CEGB that, in general, its assessments show the replanting of older stations for power generation to be less economic than constructing new nuclear or coal-fired generating capacity. The Department discusses this subject with the board from time to time.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that I find that reply entirely surprising, bearing in mind the enormous amount of capital involved in land and buildings at existing power stations? Will he get in touch with the CEGB and examine its figures, because I feel sure that significant savings could be made in the Government's capital programme?

Of course I shall do that was not raying that there were no circumstances in which replanting would be economic. An example of where it would be is perhaps the Drakelow C station. No decision has yet been made on that station, but studies indicate that re-planting there might be economic. That does not mean that it would earn the same rate of return as a new nuclear station. Those are the sorts of considerations that have to be borne in mind.

As many power stations are near town centres or industrial sites and the CEGB no longer wants to run them, because it does not regard them as economic, what discussions has my hon. Friend had with industry or local authorities to make sure that the CEGB can sell those lower stations an scrap value, so that they can be converted into combined heat and power stations by those who wish to do that?

That matter is being discussed by the CEGB with a number of parties. My hon. Friend is right to say that in some city centre locations it would be possible for power stations that are no longer required to be used for CHP schemes. They might have a role to play during the construction of the heat network of any CHP scheme. The cost of maintaining a power station that has already served its design life might be too high for a long-term role, but, my hon. Friend certainly has a point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he is having with the Post Office in seeking the sale in main post offices of gas and electricity stamps.

None direct, Sir. But I have had discussions with the gas and electricity industries about the possibility of selling stamps in post offices. The industries have agreed with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to make gas and electricity stamps available through sub-post offices. Selling stamps through main post offices is subject to the British Telecommunications Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that his reply indicates the stupidity of the system? Stamps can be sold in sub-post offices but not at main post offices. Many pensioners face increasing problems in meeting gas and electricity bills and it would be of great benefit to them if, when they drew their pensions, they could buy gas and electricity stamps, as they can buy stamps for television licences. Will the hon. Gentleman press the matter more strongly?

I agree that stamps should be available through post offices. That is why one of the first things that we did was to discuss that possibility with the industries. As a result, stamps are available through sub-post offices. However, because of the long-standing provisions of the Post Office Act 1969, it is not possible to sell stamps through main post offices or over the counters of sub-post offices. That provision will be removed by the British Telecommunications Bill if the House approves it. The position would be improved along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, and I am sure that sub-postmasters wilt be delighted with the new development, but will he consider with his ministerial colleagues the possibility of a single stamp being transferable throughout the range of public services—television, gas, electricity and so on?

I do not know about energy stamps being interchangeable with television stamps, but the gas and electricity industries will already accept each other's stamps. That was another change that we enabled to take place, though it has not been widely publicised. I wish that more people were aware of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from British industry regarding energy costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on Government policy on energy prices.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to ensure that British industry does not pay higher prices for its fuel and energy than its European competitors; and if he will make a statement.

I have received representations from the CBI, trade associations, companies and individuals on energy costs. While I would not agree that, in general, our energy costs have risen faster than, or are now above, those of our European competitors, it is, however, clear that some firms, especially in energy-intensive industries, have been hard hit. I have been discussing with the energy supply industries ways of helping to meet these problems. We are also vigorously pursuing cases of unfair foreign competition in energy pricing.

Does my right hon. Friend understand industry's suspicion that the Government have aggravated the difficulties by seeking to make energy prices a source of taxation? Does he appreciate the industry's resentment that it is being selected as much cow for that purpose?

I understand the suspicion, but it is not well grounded. The Government expect industry to meet the external financing limits, by reducing costs, not by passing them on. Tight EFLs are a healthy and desirable discipline on the efficiency of nationalised industries. However, I recognise that high energy costs are hitting industries. We have taken, and are taking, a number of steps to ease the specific problems experienced by individual industries and firms.

rose—

Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered, in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.

Taking into account the constant level of investment in wages, plant and equipment and raw materials by competing manufacturers overseas and the constant prices that their products command on the world markets, how does the Secretary of State expect British industry to compete when it is paying higher energy prices?

All countries in the Western world are facing high energy costs. That is the consequence of the last 18 months, when the price of crude oil increased by about 150 per cent. Heavy fuel oil, even after tax, is cheaper here than in France, Denmark, Belgium and Ireland. I understand that the price in West Germany has now overtaken ours. That may not remain so, but that is the present position.

Does the Secretary of State understand that relative energy pricing is his Department's most fundamental responsibility? Is he aware that in neglecting that issue he is putting on British industry burdens additional to those that it carries already because of the Government's policies?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "relative energy pricing". If he means that our energy prices, together with energy distribution prices, should be competitive, he is correct. We are seeking to improve competition, and we are making some progress. That duty is being fulfilled to the benefit, including security of supply, of British industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the basic difference of fact between what he and his ministerial colleagues say and what is represented to us by large continual users of energy, such as the chemical industry? Will he meet the Chemical Industries Association urgently to see whether at least there can be agreement about the facts so that we might have a slightly more reasoned debate on possible policy?

I welcome the thought behind my hon. Friend's question. We did get together with the CBI, which has produced an initial report. This is to be supported by more evidence, since it was rather thin originally. We have had submissions from, and talks with, a number of industries. We find that there is no basic division of view on the overall general energy price position. The division involved individual cases. Some industries are paying more than their European competitors, and some substantially less. Companies that are paying more obviously feel badly treated. There is no basic division of view about the facts. Where there is a division, we are establishing the realities.

Is the Secretary of State aware that checks made in the last few days indicate clearly that Italy and Spain are paying 18½p and 20p per therm respectively for gas? Is he aware that the average price in Britain is 30p

The average price of gas is not as high as that. The average is in the mid-20s. Spot checks can reveal large variations. However, the evidence is that throughout Europe substantial increases are taking place. In West Germany, Ruhrgas is establishing prices for renewed contracts, let alone for new customers, which are considerably higher in many cases than they are here. I do not dispute that unfavourable disadvantages for Britain exist in some cases, but, in general, the pattern is less unfavourable—and, indeed, moderately favourable—for British industry. That is what we wish.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that realistic energy pricing is an indispensable part of his Department's energy conservation policy? Will he ensure that it is always presented in such a light, instead of as a means of improving the financial position of nationalised industries?

My hon. Friend is right. The economic pricing of energy is sensible in energy policy terms. That is why it is pursued in all countries, and that is why the United States, which has pursued other policies disastrous to the world and to itself, is moving rapidly in that direction.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has failed this afternoon to answer questions about energy pricing Does he agree that it is not a question of the document that we have all received being a little thin? Does he accept that British industry is suffering from high energy prices and that it is disappointed because of that? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned coal and West Germany. Is he aware that West Germany gives a bigger subsidy than Britain does to its coal industry and that that disadvantages the British coal industry?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings. The best way to help firms in difficulty is to concentrate on their particular problems, rather than resort to unproven generalities. That is what my Department seeks to do. By doing that we shall ensure that competitive power is increasingly available on advantageous terms to British industry. That is the aim of our policy. We must concentrate on specifics. Generalities are of no help to anybody.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the meeting of the International Energy Agency that he will attend in Paris tomorrow will have a profound effect on both prices and supply? Will he urge the other members of the agency to adopt a much more realistic policy towards the stocking that has taken place as a result of the war in the Gulf? Does he agree that if the hoarding of fuel continues there is a danger, not only of price war, but a cut in production by some of the major world suppliers?

I agree about: the importance of the meeting. At present the world oil position is not unmanageable, and we must take steps and have the maximum international co-operation to ensure that it remains so. If we succeed we shall have greater stability in world oil and energy prices in the future than we had in the last year or so. The price of failure would be high indeed.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there seems to be a contradiction between his initial answer, when although he suggested that some firms were hard hit he appeared to reveal an appalling complacency about the problem? Does he recognise that British industry will see the contradiction, if he cannot, and that industry generally, especially those industries that are hard hit, are becoming sick of the inertia that he is showing in this matter, since he appears to rest his policy entirely on the hype that other people will raise their prices and forfeit the advantage that they now enjoy?

The hon. Gentleman is utterly confused, both about my answer and about his assessment of the situation. British industry recognises that the overall policy of economic energy pricing is correct and that we should, wherever possible pursue examples of unfair foreign competition, as we are doing. It is also recognised that, for particular firms and individual cases, there are problems, which the Government have sought to meet by dealing with the supply industries—gas and electricity—and with the oil industry and by ensuring that our heavy fuel oil at this moment, even after our tax, which is admittedly high by European standards, is cheaper than that of probably every other European country. That is dealing with the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the number of electricity disconnections that have taken place in the current year.

I have received letters from three hon. Members, plus representations from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Electricity Consumers' Council, the London Boroughs Association and the National Council for One-Parent Families.

Is the Minister aware that disconnections by the London Electricity Board are increasing rapidly, and that in June to September of this year there were more than double last year's total? What action can now be taken to protect pensioners, people with young families and others from the harsh winter?

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I met the chairman of the LEB last week to discuss this matter and impressed upon him the need to ensure that the code of practice on disconnections was observed. I have also discussed the matter with the Gas Corporation and the Electricity Council. As a result of those discussions the industries have agreed to two amendments to the code of practice, the details of which I shall give in an answer later today. The effect of the changes is that, first, the hardship criteria for the availability of pre-payment meters will be removed, so that meters will be more widely available; and, secondly, that the plight of the sick and the disabled, who were revealed as a particular problem in the PSI study on disconnections, will also be referred to in the code. I hope that those two steps will result in some improvement in what I agree is a worrying situation.

My hon. Friend is aware of the pre-payment argument, but one of my constituents who is on supplementary benefit was allowed to run up an account of no less than £800 because of incompetence on the part of the DHSS and the electricity board. Will he please review his decision that no one should be held responsible, that there should be no disciplinary action and no surcharge? Does he further agree that it was only when I insisted that a pre-payment meter should be installed, in the interests not only of the board but of the consumer, that that was done?

I agree that in that case it would have been better if a pre-payment meter had been available for my right hon. Friend's constituent, but in these circumstances the boards are in a difficulty. If they allow large debts to run up they are criticised; on the other hand, if they disconnect people before those debts are run up, they are still criticised. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern in this case.

I think the whole House will welcome what the Minister has said about the provision of prepayment meters. What arrangements are being made for their provision, and will they be manufactured in this country?

I have no information on the second point, but I shall look into it and write to the hon. Member. I have no reason to think that such meters cannot be available to meet the demand, and I have stressed to the industries that I think that these arrangements should be publicised as much as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will be in a position to announce the full list of successful applicants for the seventh round of licensing of exploration in the North Sea.

I expect to announce shortly the names of successful applicants for blocks in the company own choice area and to complete the awards for all blocks early in the New Year.

I am sure that that news will be much welcomed by the major companies that have applied for licences, but in making the final selection for the balance of the licences will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that some smaller consortia have been formed in the North-East of Scotland with local investment and that they should be given due consideration when the remainder of the blocks are allocated?

I realise the great interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this matter. I can assure him that both large and small British companies and consortia will have their proposals carefully analysed and assessed according to the criteria that have been published.

Can the Minister assure me that all these administrative details will be completed to allow the drilling to begin in next year's weather window? Will he undertake to ensure that, so far as possible, any drilling activity in the North Sea is given to United Kingdom-based companies?

The Government hope that the drilling on seventh round licences will get under way next year. Of course we will welcome maximum participation by United Kingdom companies.

Is the Minister aware that the recent tax proposals in the Budget will have a serious effect on exploration and development in the North Sea? When I put down a question to him it was answered by the Treasury instead. Does that mean that the Department of Energy is against these proposals?

My hon. Friend has been in the House long enough to know that there is such a doctrine as collective responsibility. The Department of Energy does not share his view. It has been suggested to us that there have been seven variations in taxation since this Government came to power, but six of those variations were decided upon before the announcement of the seventh round of licensing, and that round has broken all records in the number of applicants. Therefore, my hon. Friend's fears are on this occasion a little misplaced.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the need for energy conservation measures in the home.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether tie will take steps to encourage consumers in the United Kingdom to install insulation, solar heating and other energy saving or energy creating methods.

The best incentive for householders to use energy efficiently is realistic pricing of fuels, coupled with a vigorous information and advice campaign. We have increased expenditure on publicity by 30 per cent. in real terms, and backed this with research to identify additional steps which may become cost-effective.

Is not that reply somewhat hypocritical at a time when real expenditure on home insulation grants is decreasing? Will the Minister urge the Secretary of State to confer with the Secretary of State for the Environment, in order to increase those grants, both to assist the comsumer in the long term and to improve employment prospects in the glass-fibre industry?

I do not think it in the least hypocritical to face the reality of the difficulty of allocating a rare resource such as public expenditure. To the extent that, in an ideal world, it would be pleasant to be able to fill all grant needs and all grant requirements, obviously I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but to the extent that it is in householders' and tenants' interests to invest in energy conservation methods, one hopes that they will be able to do it with their own funds.

If people wore an extra layer of clothing, such as an extra vest or an extra sweater, not only in homes, but in offices, shops and factories, might there not be a massive saving in fuel?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have been delighted to notice the attractive sweater that the Secretary of State is wearing—clearly to draw that point to the attention of his ministerial colleagues at the IEA meeting later today.

Is the Minister aware that what is required is not more money for publicity, but more money for insulation grants? Is he aware also that the murderous assault by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the housing investment programme is totally undermining the Government's programme for domestic insulation?

No one would deny that investment in insulation—in energy efficiency, in that sense—is cost-effective. The only question that seems to be at issue is: who is to foot the bill for the investment—the State or the individual? I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, recognising the priorities for public expenditure, would expect people to do this themselves, as it is in their long-term interests to do so, and that decisions which they themselves take about their long-term investment would be much more effective and genuine and would lead in the long term to changed demand patterns. Investment comes better from the individual than from the State.

When does my hon. Friend expect to introduce standards for new housing, to ensure that adequate insulation measures are incorporated?

That is a matter for the Department of the Environment, which is still involved in the process of consultation. We have been involved in that process. We expect improved insulation standards to be recommended when the DOE document finally sees the light of day.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has had from the National Union of Mineworkers concerning the damaging effects which Government economic policies are having on the coal industry.

It is always open to the NUM to bring its views to my attention, either in coal industry tripartite meetings or indeed at any time.

Has the Minister seen the NUM's publication entitled "The Miners and the Battle for Britain", which claims that the future of the coal industry is being placed in jeopardy, that the Government have reneged on the expansion plan, which has been in existence since 1944, and that a. new financial straitjacket has been imposed on the NCB by the Coal Industry Act? Does he realise that the NCB has marketing problems because of the downturn in the demand for steel? Will he consider these problems and meet the NUM to discuss them?

I have read the publication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I spend a considerable amount of my time happily in the pits and coal areas of Britain. Despite the obvious difficulties in some areas, and despite the recession, we should bear in mind the improved productivity and the sense of success in maintaining and hatching the financial strategy, rather than berate the coal industry and the Government. One should not ask for congratulations on the Government's performance from the Dispatch Box, but the industry should be congratulated on keeping within the strategy at an extremely difficult time.

Does the Minister realise that, due to the stockpiling of coal and the Government's general attitude to the mining industry, there is fear in the industry that in the near future the Government will be on a collision course with it? Why do we not have more investment? Why cannot we have greater utilisation of coal? Why cannot we do something about the fluidised-bed system, which would bring coal to the fore?

I have difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's comments. The industry is receiving over £800 million in long-term capital productive investment, which matches the requirements of "Plan for Coal". The industry is within a four-year financial framework. Despite the difficult circumstances in which we live, the industry is achieving its goals. We should be complimenting it and welcoming the long-term development of the fluidised-bed boiler systems. There is a question on the Order Paper on that topic.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with his Department's progress in encouraging maximum energy conservation.

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

I am satisfied that the Government's energy conservation policy is making a substantial contribution to improving the efficiency of energy use in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a high proportion of total energy consumption takes place in buildings, and that therefore the design and insulation standards of buildings assume much more critical importance than hitherto? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is the closest co-ordination with the Department of the Environment on, for example, standards for building regulations? Does my right hon. Friend's Department propose to take any initiative, with organisations such as the Royal Institute of British Architects, that will lead to more energy-conscious designs?

We have constant discussions with bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects. There is constant attention to conservation. It is right that the major advances that can be made in efficiency lie very much in the areas of space heating and building design.

Following my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) on the matter of energy costs, will he clarify the relationship between the Government's conservation policy and pricing? Will he confirm that no nationalised industry has asked to add anything to its prices to meet the Government's target for energy conservation?

The move to economic pricing of energy has caused the consumer to adopt the most efficient use of energy. That must follow automatically. Substantial energy conservation is taking place, and energy use has fallen to a far greater extent in the past year than is justified merely by the effect of the recession. The nationalised industries, the suppliers, are concerned to promote conservation, and do so. The pricing policies of the oil and gas industries are governed predominantly by market considerations, and those of the electricity industry predominantly by the long-run marginal cost of the replacement unit of capacity.

In view of the deterrent effect of the top interest rates that industrialists must pay for any sort of borrowing for capital investment, would it not be helpful if the Government were to provide preferential interest rates for any sort of installation of plant or machinery, which would have the effect of making the use of energy more efficient?

One would like to see as much encouragement as possible of new investment in preparation for recovery in energy-saving machinery and technology. My Department intends to increase its spending on energy conservation demonstration projects in the next financial year. That is an important intermediate phase between research and the commercial use of new machinery that saves energy. However, once the industries see a commercial process in which it is worth investing it is up to them to decide their priorities in terms of investing in one process and not another. That is the most sensible approach. As interest rates come down, as they have been doing, the industries will have greater opportunities to choose which investment to make.

Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's well-known desire to conserve energy, will he tell us why the British Gas Corporation is allowed to blackmail people into using more energy than they need, with minimum contracts? Surely that is diametrically opposed to Government policy. Industry is charged for what it has not used, and encouraged to use what it does not need. Is it not time that that was changed?

I am not sure that that is the position. The details of contracts will be a matter for the chairman of the British Gas Corporation, and I shall call his attention to my hon. Friend's question. In general, if a contract is made to supply gas at a certain rate of off-take, a large investment has to be made in pipelines and basic capital equipment. The supplier and the customer enter into a contract, which both sides are expected to keep.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take action on pricing generally? Why do we persist in having a system of pricing that means that those who consume the most pay least, and those who consume the least, who are often the poorest in our community, pay the highest unit charges?

I know that it is confusing. However it is not the case that those who consume the least are the poorest and that those who consume the most are the best-off. It is often the other way round. Many very large families have to consume a considerable number of units. The British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry have been asked to review their patterns of charges to reflect the need both to cover costs and to have the most sensible supply tariffs. I am satisfied that they are constantly seeking to achieve the best solutions to meet those problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce a decision to go ahead with the two pilot plants for extraction of oil from coal at Point of Ayr colliery in North Wales.

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on Monday 24 November.

As Britain has a world lead in this technology, and as we have the human and natural resources to sustain it, would it not be fatal for our future as an advanced industrial nation to cut out the project in the interests of short-term economies, however pressing the need to implement them may be?

As my hon. Friend made clear in a recent Adjournment debate, a process of discussion and debate is taking place on this issue. I accept his argument on technological abilities, human availability and the resources that we have in this area, but that does not mean that we must not be careful when it comes to taking a decision.

Is the Minister aware that in his recent Adjournment debate the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) made the case that something should happen immediately, in the interests of technological development in Britain? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we are becoming concerned about the many delays for which the Department of Energy is responsible in the technology of producing oil from coal? Does he recollect that he gave an assurance to the House on the Third Reading of the Coal Industry Bill that the Government would provide as much money as the Labour Government for oil-from-coal projects? When are the Government to do that? It is urgent for Britain, and urgent for coal.

It is important to confirm my hon. Friend's remarks in the Adjournment debate, when he rightly paid tribute to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for the initiative and lead that he took when he had the position that I now have the privilege to hold. Beyond that, he laid out the programme clearly and made it clear in his work that the decision to be taken was of great complexity and importance. No matter how quickly we may wish to take that decision, considerable time and effort must be put into it. As soon as the decision is made, the House will be told.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

At 2·43 tonnes, overall output per manshift in National Coal Board deep mines in the four-week period to 22 November 1980 was just over 2 per cent. above the level in the corresponding period in 1979.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in current conditions, that is a very satisfactory increase? Does he expect output to continue to increase in that way over the next 12 months?

I entirely agree that it is very satisfactory and exactly on target. It confirms my earlier remarks that if that sort of achievement continues to be matched the miners and the Board will deserve respect.

Is the Minister aware that for mining to continue to increase productivity it must have increasing investment? Will he therefore assure us that any increased expenditure for the National Coal Board resulting from the second Social Security Act will be over and above the borrowing powers allowed in the Coal Industry Act?

I shall obey your injunctions, Mr. Speaker, and try to answer one question. Increased productivity comes from many different factors. One must compliment it. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that capital investment in the coal industry this financial year is in excess of £800 million, which is matched by the miners' excellent work in increasing productivity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on relevant European Economic Community discussions on differential pricing of gas, in the light of the resulting unfair competition.

The European Community is committed to move towards economic pricing. Where there is unfair competition, we are pursuing it, as we are in the case of Dutch horticulture.

I recognise that horticulture is not precisely my right hon. Friend's ministerial responsibility, but does he agree that the problems caused by the Dutch concern energy, and not horticulture? Will he therefore seek an immediate meeting with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to see whether a system of grants and loans can be set up to cover the interim period while the court case is being heard, because many of our horticulturists are in severe difficulty? Will he accept that if this is done many people will go out of business through no fault of Her Majesty's Government, or because of anything that is being done in this country, but purely because of the unfair competition that the industry is facing?

I recognise the severe difficulties confronting our horticulture industry and that of other countries as a result of the unfair Dutch competition. That is why the European Commission is pressing the Dutch Government and is on the paint of taking legal action if it fails to get satisfaction. That is the right way forward. My hon. Friend has talked with the horticulture industry and is well aware of the problems. Interim or bridging aid for the industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that "on the point of taking legal action" is an elastic term in Brussels? Does it mean the spring, summer or autumn?

It means as soon as possible. In the past, certain cases where State aid has been challenged have been dealt with very quickly indeed. I cannot prophesy how quickly this matter will be dealt with, but the Commission is under considerable pressure from member Governments particularly this Government. I believe that there is a good chance that the matter will be completed urgently.

What discussions have taken place between my right hon. Friend's Department and similar departments in other EEC countries about building a cross-Channel pipeline, which would be one way to equalise gas costs?

None, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the external finance limit for the industry for this financial year.

I have frequent meetings with the chairman of the NCB to discuss the board's progress with its financial strategy.

Following my right hon. Friend's reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), may I ask whether he is aware that there is a widely held belief that the very tight EFLs are being passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices? Does legislative machinery exist to prevent that?

We have the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I cannot give my hon. Friend any further information at the moment, but we shall contact him to tell him whether there are other processes that can be used.

Why should productive investment by nationalised industries be subject to Treasury restrictions?

With respect, I do not regard the ability to watch the ways in which public money is spent and the attempt to keep normal control on it as in any way restrictive. Investment is provided, and it is the job of Government to make sure that it is wisely and properly spent.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many oral statements have been made by Ministers to the House during the current Session.

Four, Sir, and two Business Statements.

Is the Leader of the House aware that, on this side of the House at least, we are becoming increasingly irritated by the way in which major items of policy are planted in Hansard by means of written questions, such as, for example, the extension of the 6 per cent. pay policy for local authority employees? Will he tell his Cabinet colleagues that the House expects full statements on major items of policy, instead of information being sneaked into Hansard?

The hon. Gentleman may be irritated, but his irritation is not justified. In all the statements that have been made, oral or written, the appropriate precedents have been followed. Although we must follow those precedents, it is a positive advantage for Ministers to be able to come to the House to explain and defend Government policies. They are able to do that all the better when questions are put, not always totally aptly, by Opposition Members.

As a matter of interest, how do my right hon. Friend and his colleagues manage to keep up with the constant game of musical chairs on the Opposition Front Bench? How do they know who will answer what?

I agree. It is quite difficult, but we hope that the matter will be resolved today. As for musical chairs, I find my role as Minister for the Arts helpful.

Merely because the Labour Government did so occasionally, is that an excuse for the Government sneaking written answers in at toe last minute? Can the right hon. Gentleman at least assure us that on Thursday 18 December, the next to last day of term before Christmas, he will not sneak in important answers in response to written questions, which would mean that the House could not scrutinise them until the middle of January?

I do not sneak in any answers. I enjoy making oral statements to the House, and I am distressed when my business questions are cut down.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what consideration the Services Committee is currently giving to the provision of extra parliamentary facilities.

The Services Committee presented a report to the House last Session, which, if implemented, would enable a considerable extension of facilities to be made in the long term. In view of the present lack of funds for new facilities, the Committee is concentrating on seeing that the existing facilities are used to the best effect.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is virtually no prospect—nor should there be—of funds being made available for the redevelopment of the Bridge Street site? Will he therefore seriously contemplate a new initiative to allow a joint public and private venture approach to the site, particularly one financed by private capital?

I am concerned about the inadequate accommodation that undoubtedly exists for hon. Members. It is an interesting suggestion that we could use private capital for that purpose, which I shall pursue. It is constructive and useful.

With regard to the idea that was put forward by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), whether or not we agree with it, is it not the case that we have never debated the Casson report? Before replying to an off-the-cuff idea, would it not be sensible to debate the report on the Floor of the House?

I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by an early debate on the Casson report, because we know that public money is not available, but I am not against a debate at some stage. My hon. Friend's remark was not an off-the-cuff idea, because he has written to me about it.

What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about the unacceptable rising cost of running the Palace of Westminster? How can he, the Government and hon. Members expect the country to follow the example that we are supposed to be setting for restraint in public expenditure, when ours is such a bad example? Is there not much evidence of wastage and inefficiency in the running of the Palace of Westminster that should be cut out?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that we get good value for money in this House. The House of Commons Commission, which is responsible for these matters, is constantly looking for ways to make economies, and we shall continue to do so.

Is the Minister aware that we know that he wanted the building to be erected but that he was given instructions from elsewhere that it was not to be built? Will he tell the House the approximate annual cost of erecting that building across the way, on the assumption that it will take about seven years to construct, which is a reasonable amount of time? Will he check with the Treasury as to whether the proposal that he has received this afternoon and in a previous letter would be acceptable by its rules on public expenditure? Will he also tell the House when we may expect to get rid of that slum across the road, which is a disgrace not only to this House but to London?

The right hon. Gentleman must not talk about the Treasury like that.

I was going to say that I did not know to which particular slum the right hon. Gentleman referred. With regard to his question concerning the time of seven years, he will appreciate that I cannot answer that immediately, but I shall write to him with the appropriate figures. We must accept that there is a shortage of money. Some hon. Members would like the accommodation across the road, but others would not. I am most anxious to ensure that hon. Members have adequate facilities, but we have to cut our coat according to the cloth.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in view of the long queues in St. Stephen's, Members' difficulty in getting tickets, and the usual significant number of empty places in the Strangers Gallery, he will institute a study of the system of allocating visitors' tickets to the House.

No, Sir. The accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee considered this matter only last November, and it was of the opinion that the present arrangements should not be varied, except that Admission Orders should carry a request in bold print that Members should return any Admission Orders to the Admission Order Office if not required. I have arranged for that to be done, and there has been a slight improvement in the number of Admission Orders returned for use by others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he had arrived a quarter of an hour early for prayers last Thursday, he would have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) and five parliamentary colleagues sitting on the Government Benches, queuing to get a favourable position in the unseemly daily rugger scrum that surrounds the Serjeant at Arms' chair in order to get tickets? Is he further aware that some hon. Members feel that that is less than necessary, because many people pocket their tickets or leave it until the last moment to return them? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are complaining about the system, not about the courteous staff of the Serjeant at Arms' Department? Will he examine the matter again during the winter, before the inevitable happens next summer?

I cannot keep referring the matter to a Committee of the House. If a Committee has recently investigated a suggestion and come down against it, there is little further that I can do. The solution to the problem lies in the hands of hon. Members. As I have said, there has been a slight improvement, but I appeal once again to hon. Members to return any unused tickets, or tickets that are unlikely to be used, in good time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Members' Gallery is in use on very few occasions? Could not there not be some flexibility in the use of it, to enable more visitors to be accommodated?

We keep the situation under continuous review. We see the number of Admission Orders for the Special Galleries, and we look at the Diplomatic Gallery. If those seats are not used they should be available to Members for their visitors, and they are.

What are the views of the right hon. Gentleman on why children visit the Tower of London more frequently than they visit the Palace of Westminster? Is he aware that the Department of the Environment employs more than 100 information officers, one of whom is an education officer who is solely responsible for showing schoolchildren the Tower? Why has this House no such officer?

That is an interesting suggestion, and I shall look into it on behalf of the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that more children visit the Tower of London because they find it more intrinsically interesting than the activities of this House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in view of the normally riveting nature of our debates, it would be sufficient for most visitors if they had tickets enabling them to sit in the Public Gallery for 15 minutes, and no more? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that would make it easier for hon. Members to accommodate coach parties from their neck of the woods for short periods?

I shall consider that suggestion, but it is a dangerous remark for the hon. Gentleman to make. If he continues to make remarks such as that, he may end up in the Tower.