asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes any changes in the functions of his Department's energy conservation division.

No, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend comment on press speculation that the Government might be proposing a new conservation agency? Does he agree that, whatever the merits of such a proposal, the best possible agent for the cost-effective use of energy is a realistic pricing policy?

It is not my place, especially after recent events, to comment on press speculation. I accept the point that my hon. Friend has made about price being a key factor in energy conservaton, but we have no immediate plans to introduce an energy conservation agency. The possibility of establishing an energy conservation agency has been considered in the Department, but only as one possible option for developing the Government's conservation strategy. I agree with the importance of ensuring effective co-ordination of energy conservation policy. My Department already carries out that function. Establishing an energy conservation agency is not the only or necessarily the best way forward.

Order. For someone taken by surprise, that was a very long reply.

Does the Minister agree that absent from his statement on the possible reconsideration of energy policy was a statement on the social costs or factors involved in repricing in energy policy? Will he take the aged and the disabled into account?

The Government have made that clear by their large programme of help to those in need. There is a major £200 million-plus programme of help to those in need. That shows the Government's keen concern for those aspects of social, as opposed to energy, policy.

I understand my hon. Friend's point of view about a possible new energy conservation institution, but does he agree that there is a great opportunity for a new Government initiative on energy conservation, as in so many ways that could be the most cost-effective way of proceeding with energy policy?

I accept my hon. Friend's point about the degree to which energy conservation is cost-effective, but he should recognise that the Government's conservation policy, which will be discussed in the debate later today, is proceeding successfully.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to argue before the House and the country that the basis of an energy conservation policy must be pricing is a lazy policy for any Government to pursue in tackling conservation?

Quite the contrary. I was referring to one point that my hon. Friend made. I should have thought that recognising the realities of price was an honest part of our overall energy conservation policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his consideration of measures to assist industrial high energy users whose energy costs compare unfavourably with their international competitors.

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

It was agreed at the NEDC meeting in January that British industry generally was not at a disadvantage compared with its international competitors over energy costs. The Government have made clear their concern that certain energy-intensive industries are having to pay more for their energy than some of their counterparts overseas. If the pound continued to strengthen against European currencies, it could lead to increasing disparities in energy prices in sterling terms. The NEDC task force will shortly be reporting on the current situation for large users.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that it becomes better known than it is at present that industrial energy prices on the Continent have risen at least as fast as they have in this country? That is not generally realised. When considering special measures to assist high energy users, will he take into account the fact that those include not only industries such as steel, but certain parts of the textile industry, even though they do not have the same pull as the steel industry?

The concern of the NEDC task force is with the high load and large users, where it seems to be agreed that disparities may exist, but I understand my hon. Friend's question. The first part of his question is correct. All over the world, and indeed in many European countries, energy prices have been rising at a faster rate than they have here. We have had a huge oil price explosion, the shock waves of which are going through all industrial systems throughout the world.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the weight of evidence being produced by several industries, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), is overwhelmingly in support of the view that our industry is being unfairly discriminated against on energy pricing? Why are the Government continuously prevaricating on the matter? When may we have a definitive statement on their policies?

The NEDC task force was set up to identify the precise areas where allegations and beliefs proved to be more than just feelings and were facts. As was recognised by the Government a considerable time ago, there are disparities for bulk users. As I mentioned in my original answer, the continual movement of the pound makes the disparities even harder and greater in some cases. That has been recognised. That is why the task force was set up, and the Government have said that they will respond when they see the exact nature of the problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, among our international competitors, the French are making great progress in keeping down the rise in electricity prices by the use of nuclear power? Will he take this early opportunity to rebut the findings of our Select Committee in that respect?

I do not want to take this opportunity to comment on the Select Committee's report, which is being studied closely by the Government. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The cost structure of an electricity industry with a growing nuclear component and a large hydroelectric component is bound to be increasingly favourable in future. That is why the Government believe that we should have a modest, but expanding, nuclear programme.

The Secretary of State should not come to the Dispatch Box and be so bland and complacent on issues that are of serious importance to the whole of our industry. When will the NEDC report emerge? With each week that goes by, companies lose vital export orders as a result of energy prices. Will the right hon. Gentleman confess not only that he forced up gas prices to domestic consumers by more than the British Gas Corporation wanted last year, but that he insisted that it should impose higher increases on industrial consumers? Will he take on board the arguments from both sides of the House that industry is seriously affected by the Government's energy policy?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the report is expected on about 4 March. On the second question, the BGC's industrial energy policy is determined by economic pricing principles, which the Government adhere to and which are in accordance with the corporation's own policy and aims in industrial energy. Domestic energy prices are about half those in France and Germany. That is generally recognised by industry, which has urged that those prices should rise even faster. I have resisted that, because I believe that the proposed rate of increase is substantial. However, industry was pressing me to do even more.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about his investigations into allegations that certain employers in the North Sea oil industry are exploiting cheap overseas labour.

The undertaking that I gave in a recent Scottish Television programme related to statements made about the Universal Services International. My officials have taken these up with the company, which has now given an undertaking to phase out the employment of non-EEC nationals on rigs in United Kingdom waters by the middle of this year. I have asked the Offshore Supplies Office to monitor progress and keep me advised.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an absolute scandal that an American multinational company, such as the one that he has named, should have been allowed in the first place to exploit overseas workers by paying them only one-third of the trade union rate for the job and making them work 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, for six weeks at a time? Is it not time that employment protection legislation was extended to the North Sea and that the Government issued instructions through the Offshore Supplies Office that no contracts should be given to the American multinational gangsters that are operating an international slave trade in the North Sea?

The hon. Gentleman has a weakness for overstating his case. To put the matter in perspective, it is worth pointing out that of all those employed on the United Kingdom continental shelf, 92 per cent. are United Kingdom nationals. The company in question has a very good record on procurement. It buys practically all its supplies within the Aberdeen area. In addition, 65 per cent. of its personnel operating out of Aberdeen are United Kingdom nationals. I have no comment to make about those who have been taken on by the company away from the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future investment in the coal industry,

I and my colleagues meet the chairman of the NCB frequently to discuss aspects of the board's affairs. In my recent tripartite talks with both sides of the industry I reaffirmed the Government's commitment to investment in the coal industry's long-term future.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great moral debt owed to the coal industry and, particularly, to the miners, because of the ineptitude shown by the Government over the past two weeks in disrupting the good relations in the industry? Will he bear that in mind when he has the investment talks—I read in the papers that there is to be a meeting on Wednesday—and seek to introduce legislation immediately to amend the Coal Industry Act 1980 and to deal with the importing of coal? In closing uneconomic pits, are the Government likely to meet the agreement on production targets that they reached in Venice last year?

There is no need for legislation. I should make it clear that there is no question of having a general system of import controls. I do not like import controls. What is being proposed is that the NCB should have the resources to price more of its coal competitively with the imports being brought in by the CEGB and the BSC and thus help to reduce imports towards the irreducible minimum. That is what the Government have said that they will discuss with an open mind towards movement next Wednesday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that funds for highly profitable, low-cost pits will not be available if money goes to some of the uneconomic pits'? Is he also aware that it is not satisfactory to the United Kingdom if we have one set of economic laws for the miners and another set for the rest of the country?

The implication of my hon. Friend's question is correct. The long-term interests of the industry, which has a great future, lie in investment in modern pits and effective investment in new faces in existing pits. As it is an extractive industry, that inevitably involves a degree of closures as well. That has always been recognised by both sides of the industry and it is the basis on which we shall plan a common sense future together.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past 10 years, pits have closed on the basis of having no further reserves, and not on the basis of being uneconomic at a particular time? Pits that are uneconomic at one time could become economic later. Will he confirm that the irreducible minimum of imports will be 1 million tonnes, as suggested by Sir Derek Ezra on the night of the concession made by the Government' Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how long it will take to reach that figure? That is very important for the miners. Will he also bear in mind that, to assist the miners and industry generally, the Government have a duty to change their policy in order to get away from the recession, to build up industry, to burn more coal and to help everybody else in the process?

The reduction of imports by the CEGB and the BSC will be discussed with the industry next Wednesday. It is right that that matter should be discussed in the tripartite forum in a common sense atmosphere. With regard to the NCB's policy on closures, the board and the unions have been asked to discuss a pattern for closures consistent with the Plan for Coal, and consistent also with the severe economic realities that all industries face. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to discuss the financial implications with an open mind and also with a view to movement. That is what we shall discuss at Wednesday's tripartite meeting.

Is it not the case that the coal industry cannot be immune from the economic recession? Does not the Plan for Coal specifically envisage extensive pit closures, only about half of which have been achieved since the plan was agreed?

No industry can be immune from the difficulties faced by all those in business and industry during an economic recession. My hon. Friend is correct on that point.

As the whole matter of cash limits and imports needs to be considered positively, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government are not going into the talks on the surly basis that they were defeated last week?

My right hon. Friend and I have made clear the basis on which the discussions were held last week and the basis on which the talks on Wednesday will be held. The words that I used in the House on Thursday were perfectly clear. They were the words used to both sides of industry. They are the words that were accepted by both sides of industry. They will be the basis for our talks at the tripartite meeting on Wednesday.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had during the last month with leaders of British industry on energy pricing policy.

At the NEDC in January it was agreed that a task force should be set up to report on energy prices to bulk users. This task force, on which both the CBI and my Department are represented, is therefore the main forum for discussion with industry at present. I will, of course, be discussing its findings at the NEDC meeting on 4 March.

Has the Under-Secretary noted the comments of Courtaulds, which has maintained in every closure announcement that it has made over the last 12 months that the reasons for closure have been the high cost of energy and the high cost of feedstock? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene and set up an investigation into the relationship between textile closures and high energy costs and high feedstock costs? Will he say whether he intends to accept any recommendation that the task force may make on prices?

I have noticed the statements by Courtaulds, just as I have noticed those of a number of firms in the industrial sector. The Government are waiting for the conclusions of the NEDC task force, which will be available on about 4 March. They will then formulate their response. The hon. Gentleman referred to feedstock. I should point out that some companies in this country have very cheap feedstock which has been the cause of comment and complaint from some producers abroad.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the most effective, immediate way of helping large energy-consuming industries would be a reduction in the rate of duty on heavy oil?

That is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he will note what my hon. Friend says. Many people have made representations to that effect.

Will the Minister accept that almost six months have lapsed since the steel industry in South Yorkshire, both the private and public sectors, presented the facts about the very difficult position faced by that industry as a result of energy prices being higher than those of its competitors in France and Germany? Does he realise that the task force is duplicating the work that was carried out by the industry? When can we expect a helpful response?

The hon. Gentleman is not right. Many matters have to be clarified. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case made by the steel industry. One point that emerged from the evidence of the steel industry on energy prices was that the utilities in this country had, over two years, put up their prices by rather less than the Continental countries had done. When the exchange rate factor was taken into account, a different picture emerged. It is not so simple as the hon. Gentleman says. We recognise that industry has problems when there are bulk buyers. We have asked the utilities to prepare proposals, to which the Government have referred on previous occasions.

Is it not somewhat hypocritical for the Labour Party to complain about energy prices when its leader treats a decision to maximise the less economic forms of coal production as a victory? Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House—

The hon. Gentleman is not helping the Minister.

I do not always intend to. Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House on whether concessions from the National Coal Board on pricing to enable its two biggest customers to meet the price of imported coal will be extended to substantial users of imported coal in the private sector.

The answer to the latter point is "No". We are discussing the position of two nationalised corporations. There is no question of the general position being altered. On my hon. Friend's first point, I note what he says, including his remark that he does not always want to be helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department will negotiate with the gas boards with a view to their including a leaflet when sending out gas bills advising consumers how to obtain Government grants for insulating homes.

I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the gas regions have already done so.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that this document shows the extra help given to old-age pensioners? The heating of their homes means so much to their continued good health.

I shall draw the point that my hon. Friend makes to the attention of the gas boards. There are specific additional forms of help, including up to 90 per cent. on insulation, for those who are elderly and in special need.

Would there not be more advantages for the consumer if the Government adhered to their declared policy of non-intervention, instead of forcing an industry that is making substantial profits to make astronomical rises in prices?

I think that my hon. Friend was trying to ask me to encourage the British Gas Corporation, like other nationalised corporations, to help the consumer to understand the benefits of insulation to industry, to the nation and to individuals. That is to be commended.

I welcome the progress already made by the gas boards, but is there not a case for changing the statutory terms of reference so that both gas and electricity boards can go into conservation properly, as on the West Coast of the United States?

Any suggestions of that kind merit attention, but I am obviously not at liberty to discuss statutory changes at this time.

Is the Minister not aware that gas consumers understand all too well that they will face a 25 per cent. increase in gas prices in the coming year? That is a gas bill of £450 million for average domestic gas consumers. Would it not be better at least to withdraw the 10 per cent. surcharge imposed by the Government and allow the British Gas Corporation to set its own prices?

Apart from the fact that the domestic gas sector only just about breaks even, I believe that Opposition Members should be more aware of the ways in which rational pricing is producing an expenditure of £400 million this year on domestic insulation in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made towards international adherence to the Venice summit commitment to economic pricing of oil.

Good progress is being made. The United States has recently taken steps to ensure that domestic prices for oil should take into account representative world prices. We shall continue to pay close attention to this subject in the appropriate international bodies.

I recognise the action taken in various countries on international prices of oil, especially in the United States, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe for further initiatives on the prices of gas in various countries, particularly the United States, to ensure that gas prices are set on an economic basis, along the lines of the courageous policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend's objective. In fact, the Government have made it clear at International Energy Agency ministerial meetings that we believe that economic pricing policy should apply to all fuels, and not simply oil. If that does not happen, as my hon. Friend rightly says, industries in this country, as throughout the rest of Europe, are subjected to considerable unfair competition. That is not satisfactory. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that it is a matter that must be changed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that his policy of running ahead of the field, in particular in relation to United States energy pricing, is severely damaging to British industry? Does he not accept that we should call a halt until the United States and other like nations catch up with us?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that a policy of general intervention to hold down energy prices would not help solve the particular problems that some energy-intensive industries face. The idea that one can deal with particular problems, which often go far deeper than energy pricing, by general and highly expensive intervention in energy pricing not only undermines future energy investment, but is highly cost-effective. It would be the worst way to help the industries concerned.

But what does "economic pricing" of oil mean? Does it mean Government intervention to put our prices at the level set by OPEC?

It means that the price of oil is the world market price, which is set in the Rotterdam world oil market. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is another price of oil that can be secured, I urge him to try to buy oil below the world market price or to sell it above the world market price. He will find that he cannot do it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will issue a general direction to electricity supply boards that places of worship should be classified as domestic premises for the purposes of electricity tariff.

No, Sir. Formulation of electricity tariffs is a statutory responsibility of the area electricity boards. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind this would best be pursued direct with the board concerned.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have done that, without any satisfaction? The Yorkshire electricity board treats places of worship as commercial and miscellaneous premises, with the result that they are allocated a large primary block of units for charging purposes, so large for some spacious churches that their consumption never exceeds that primary block, for which they have to pay through the nose. Will the Minister examine the matter again and iron out this injustice?

I shall look at the matter again. It is also open to the hon. Gentleman to take it up with the consultative council. I do not think that he has done that.

I have—nationally.

It is by no means clear that the change that the hon. Gentleman wants will definitely be of advantage. He should take into account the fact that church halls are often most used at a time of peak demand, when the charges reflect the costs of supplying electricity at that time.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that if he goes to church regularly—perhaps that is what Ministers need to do, because we are reaching the stage at which at least we need some praying, if nothing else—he will find that churches cannot afford to meet fuel prices, because they are going so high, and half the churches are freezing cold on a Sunday?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that I went to church yesterday, when I had the pleasure of praying for Her Majesty's Ministers. It was extremely cold.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that his policies in relation to energy conservation are fully understood by the general public.

Expenditure on information and advice provided by my Department has been increased by 30 per cent. in real terms in 1980–81 as part or our efforts to help the public understand the reality of energy price changes at a time when world energy prices are increasing rapidly. Since the beginning of 1979, world dollar oil prices have risen by 175 per cent. or more than doubled, excluding general inflation. We believe that the message is getting through.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the presentation of the Government's energy policy illustrates the dilemma of having a good policy not very well explained, which is not unknown to Conservative Governments? Where conservation is a major factor in energy pricing, will he and his colleagues do their best to do a little better than they have done to explain the policies, which I am sure are adequate, in language that people can understand?

I shall always listen to my hon. Friend and learn from him, but harsh reality is always difficult to communicate. However, I point out that in the past 18 months about 1 million homes have had their lofts insulated, which I suggest indicates that the message is getting through.

Will the Minister concede that persuasion, as well as understanding, is required? Will he have regard to the sums being spent by countries such as France, Germany, the United States and Sweden on fiscal measures to encourage conservation, and accept that in the last resort economic pricing is not in itself a sufficient incentive to carry out a comprehensive exercise in conservation?

All the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned regard economic pricing as the cornerstone of economic conservation. I accept that changing long-term attitudes is a difficult task of persuasion, but at the end of the day the total of Government expenditure is not a sufficient indicator of the long-term success of a nation's energy conservation policies. The true indicator is a change in individual demand attitudes, which is much more difficult.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are entitled to know where the market price for oil is decided? Does he agree that the market price at present is decided by OPEC, which controls 90 per cent. of the oil used in the free world, and that the Rotterdam market trades in only about 10 per cent.?

I have enough difficulty explaining the Government's energy conservation policies without trying to communicate that problem.

When we discuss conservation, does the Minister agree that the public are entitled to know that the manufacturers of insulation feel betrayed by the Government, in that their factories are working below capacity and they are forced to pay people off? How do the Government account for that when they boast about their insulation policy?

We all recognise the difficulties in a recession, but the facts are more important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has just announced a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in the home insulation grant for 1981–82. The facts speak far better than comments of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many local authorities have expressed interest in developing experimental combined heat and power schemes.

Thirty-two local authorities have expressed some interest in the Government's CHP feasibility programme. However, some of these relate to the same candidate for possible lead city status; for example, South Yorkshire county council has supported the city of Sheffield's claims.

Is the Minister aware that Sheffield is very keen to take part in the scheme? Such experiments could have far-reaching consequences for energy conservation—far beyond the other programmes that we have so far.

I am very much aware of the support of the Members of Parliament in the Sheffield area and of Sheffield city council for Sheffield's place in the scheme. The six areas that have been recommended are Glasgow, Newcastle, East-Central London, Sheffield, Belfast and Liverpool. There is extensive interest in, and support for, the lead city scheme proposals.

As it is estimated that there are already about 3,000 district combined heat and power schemes in non-Communist, Western Europe, making a major contribution to supplying the consumer with waste heat, and benefiting the economy, does my hon. Friend not think that perhaps we are moving just a little cautiously in removing the obstacles that prevent it from developing here—apart from just one lead city scheme?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's long interest in, and support for, combined heat and power and district heating. I think that the Government are moving as fast as they can, when they must recognise that ultimately they are talking about the expenditure of public money.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to introduce legislation which will make possible the private generation of electricity as a main business.

As my right hon. Friend announced on 21 July 1980, we intend to remove the present statutory prohibition as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

If it is the Government's genuine intention to remove this obstacle, by doing which they can make a major contribution to getting combined heat and power going in the country, why not use this afternoon's Energy Conservation Bill and put a sensible clause into that?

We genuinely intend to make this change, and we have another legislative vehicle in mind for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy why he asked the Central Electricity Generating Board to investigate an alternative cable route across the Channel for the 2,000 megawatts cross-Channel cable link; what was the cost of the survey; and who will meet it.

At the public inquiry, objectors to the proposal to site the converter station at Sellindge suggested Dungeness as an alternative. Being able to site the station there depends on the feasibility of taking the cable there from France via the Varne Bank. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and Energy therefore asked the CEGB to investigate the feasibility of a cable route frome Varne to Dungeness. This involved a sea bed survey.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approval for the scheme was given by his right hon. Friend as long ago as last July, that the French are getting increasingly impatient about the delay, and that the delay is due not to the CEGB but to the objections of highly placed individuals living near the proposed site for the converter station, including the editor of The Daily Telegraph and Lord Aldington, vice-chairman of the General Electric Company, both former Members of this House? Is it not wrong that so much trouble should be taken over two objectors because they are highly placed, when the ordinary objector would not be listened to?

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend has a statutory duty in this matter and, therefore, that it would be improper for me to comment on his remarks.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the statement made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is only half true and that, had he been at the inquiry at Sellindge on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, he would have learnt that new information came to hand which was vital to any decision?

I am afraid that my answer to my hon. Friend must be the same: we are not in a position to comment, because of the statutory position of the two Departments.

Will the Minister at least take the opportunity today to confirm his belief in the urgency of this proposal in terms of the additional generation that it provides for the CEGB and the further impetus for coal usage, in view of recent decisions?

This is such an important project that the Government have to pay regard to the objections that have been raised.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what will be the impact of delay on this project, which will be of advantage to both sides of the Channel?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there are considerable economic advantages in the project. However, the Government, despite seeing that clearly, and despite having given investment approval to the project, are statutorily bound to pay attention to the environmental and other objections that have been made against the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that the present regime of taxation of North Sea Oil producers is optimally suited to the needs of United Kingdom energy policy.

I am confident my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take full account of United Kingdom energy policy requirements when considering his Budget measures.

Although I accept the case for additional taxation, is there not a real danger that frequent changes to a taxation policy that is already extremely complicated will lead to a decrease in activity in the North Sea, which will be very harmful to the long-term development of our energy policy?

I feel confident that the proposals that will be announced by my right hon. and learned Friend will not place any inhibition on the oil companies. I remind my hon. Friend that of the seven changes in taxation affecting the oil companies that have taken place since the Government came to power, albeit some of them very minor, six had already taken place before the announcement of the seventh round of licensing, yet, with 123 applicants, we broke all records in that.

Does the Minister realise that many financial experts think that the major oil companies are getting away with much bigger profits than they should be allowed? Will he therefore use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make. certain that the country gets a fairer and better share of the profits from North Sea oil?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated slightly. It is necessary for us to have a steady flow of investment in the North Sea. The line that we draw between getting the proper benefit in the national interest and providing an incentive for those who wish to invest is a very delicate one. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get it right.

Although high rates of taxation are, to a greater or lesser extent, no doubt a disincentive to exploration in the North Sea, does my hon. Friend agree that uncertainty is also a disincentive? Does he agree, further, that there may be grounds for considering quite soon some kind of assurance on the lines of the Varley assurances given in 1970–74, which would give some idea of future stability for the industry?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we honoured the Varley assurances. It might be useful to look at something along the lines that he suggests. We are always prepared to consider these matters. I assure him that this is receiving serious consideration at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the insulation industry concerning the effectiveness of the conservation programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have regular contacts with all sectors of the insulation industry. We believe that our energy conservation policy will result in a continuing and expanding market for the industry.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the change in the system of housing improvement finance has meant that there has been a drop in the number of insulation improvements carried out in public sector housing? Will he consult the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to restoring specific allocations of housing grants for local authorities for public sector housing?

Although there has been a drop, it has been somewhat exaggerated in comments by the industry. The take-up seems to be nearer 60 per cent. than the 33 per cent. that the industry's figures suggest. It is not fair to observe that that necessarily arises from a change in the system of allocation. However, I obviously share my hon. Friend's concern about any reduction in local authority insulating standards.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will take steps to improve the opportunity of the House to deal with Scottish business.

I have no proposals to make at the moment.

Although the Government have now clearly ditched any older commitments for genuine devolution, why is there such reluctance even to the idea of having the Scottish Grand Committee sit in Scotland now and again? Are the Government afraid that Scottish Tory Members and Scottish Office Ministers would be publicly exposed as the puppets of a discredited Government whose policies are so disastrous and unpopular that more than 50,000 people took to the streets of Glasgow on Saturday to demonstrate their opposition?

This is an important matter. In recent weeks I have been considering the inter-party talks. In due course I shall bring forward proposals to the House as a result of those talks.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, as far back as 7 August of last year, said that they would recommend to the House that the proposals from the inter-party talks should be accepted by the House. Why is there this delay? These are extremely moderate proposals, but they would provide a little improvement in the way that we handle Scottish business. They should have been brought forward long before now.

Be that as it may, in the course of the last five or six weeks that I have held my present office I have been considering this, among many other matters. One of the matters remaining to be cleared up was, for example the important one of pensions, which we dealt with last week. I shall bring proposals on this matter before the House reasonably soon.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for increasing the time available on the Floor of the House for debating reports from Select Committees.

I shall endeavour to find time for such debates as the need arises and in accordance with the wishes of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is an extremely vague and meaningless reply? Does he not recognise that, as these Select Committees are working extremely hard and producing extremely important reports—especially the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—he should give a firm undertaking that in this Session he will bring forward proposals to specify a number of days per Session for debates on these important reports?

I agree that these reports are important. However, it is fair to say that, up till now at any rate, the Liaison Committee has not felt it necessary to make representations in the sense just made by the hon. Gentleman. I want to watch the development of these Select Committees. I doubt whether a specific number of days will be the appropriate way of dealing with the problem. But I am sure that, as the need arises, we can consider in due course how best to handle it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he allows more time for debates in this House on the reports of these Select Committees, it is possible that right hon. and hon. Members who serve on Select Committees will dominate those debates? Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that some of us are concerned that the appointment of the Select Committees has already detracted from the value of the Chamber itself? I hope that he will not continue this process.

It is also true that the Select Committees have provided a good deal of additional information, both for this House and for people outside. They are still at a very early stage of their development. I do not think that there is any need for events in a Select Committee to affect how a specific matter is handled on the Floor of the House. There has never been any question of anything like every report from every Select Committee being debated on the Floor, obviously not, but from time to time there will be occasions when the House feels that a specific report should be debated. As the need arises, I shall endeavour to find time.

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that for the past 150 years there has been a succession of excuses for the Chamber being empty, that this is only the latest of the various excuses, and that the Opposition hope that he will continue with the experiments, and indeed increase them?

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. It must, and I am sure always will be, the case that this Chamber is the centre of our deliberations.

If my right hon. Friend is successful in finding plenty of time, will he consider taking a few Committee stages of Bills on the Floor of the House?

I am not sure how popular that would be. My hon. Friend knows the constraints upon any Leader of the House. Where it is appropriate, naturally we shall have to find the time. I note what my hon. Friend says.

Will the Leader of the House also bear in mind the fact that there is a strong body of opinion on both sides of the House, and certainly on the Opposition Benches, to the effect that any available hours should be used to debate matters of urgency, such as the many that have arisen over the past few months under this Conservative Government? That would give us an opportunity to raise such matters without having to make application all the time to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that some of us—perhaps more than that now that the Committees are sitting—believe that they are simply sloppy all-party consensus Committees and that we cannot afford to spend any more time on them down here?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are no new proposals before the House to change its procedures in that way at the moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of those who seek to take advantage of such opportunities as there are for raising mattors, but I have no new proposals to make at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, to mark the International Year of Disabled People, he will take measures to increase the parking space available for disabled people within the Palace of Westminster during office hours, having particular regard to the increasing number of disabled people attending debates and meeting Members.

I will arrange for a review to be held. It would be helpful if the all-party disablement group would make its own reappraisal, and bring forward a proposal as part of the overall review of facilities for the disabled which it has already been agreed should be undertaken.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful reply, may I suggest that there are facilities in the House that are being misused? Will he look at that? In this International Year of Disabled People, will he take into account the embarrassment and difficulty faced by these people? Does he agree that we should consider also the embarrassment caused to ourselves when constituents visit us and the problems faced by Officers of the House and the police in finding such accommodation?

It would, of course, be the purpose of such a review to look at all these matters. We thought that it would be a good beginning for the all-party disablement group to put in its own views in the first instance, but of course we want to do what we can to help.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as part of the activities in my constituency for the International Year of Disabled People I spent a couple of hours in a wheelchair on Friday, which gives one a much better opportunity to appreciate the problems? As my right hon. Friend is responsible for co-ordinating Government policy, will he do his best to ensure that local authorities, Government Departments and organisations such as the Post Office make a real effort this year to see what they can do to help disabled people to overcome some of the problems in their ordinary lives which those of us who are more fortunate do not normally encounter?

I think that every organisation, both public and private, is giving consideration to this matter. I do not think that it is for the Government, as it were, to instruct the Post Office, but it is well known that the Government are behind the efforts being made in this International Year of Disabled People, and we shall, of course, wish to do what we can to help.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to improve the office facilities available to hon. Members.

Not at present, but, as the House knows, there is the Casson scheme for Bridge Street, which could be reconsidered when circumstances are more favourable.

Does the Minister agree that conditions are far worse here than in almost any other comparable country? How long will it be before decent facilities are available at least to all those who wish to have them?

While what the hon. Gentleman says may be true, I can only say that when I first came to the House the arrangements were a jolly sight worse. I think that it is necessary to point that out. As the hon. Gentleman has complained, it is right to recognise what has been done in the intervening years. It is a continuing process. If a major advance is required, in due course, when times are better, no doubt we can make it. Clearly, one is aware, in one's own capacity, apart from anyone else's, of the shortcomings of this building.

Axe we sure that it is desirable to change the character of the House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is what has happened over the past few years? By providing all these facilities, are we not already denuding the Palace of Westminster of the Members themselves?

Whilst I might in a sense have some personal sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend, I think that it is only the truth to say that over the years the great majority of Members in all parts of the House have required, and almost insisted upon, the kind of expansion, development and improvement of office and other facilities that has taken place. I think that it has been in response to the general wishes of the House that these changes have been made.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on methods of presentation of Government policy.

The Government seek to ensure that information on all aspects of their policy is widely available. Ministers explain the policies they are pursuing in speeches and by interviews, through press notices and briefing and speeches and statements in the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the description of "Right-wing extremist" applied to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government, when the Government are quite properly providing huge sums of money for the nationalised industries, is ridiculous? Will my right hon. Friend therefore accept that many of us very much welcome his recent speech at Putney, which reaffirmed the pragmatic role of the Conservative Party, and will he please keep at it?

All that I can say is that, whatever else I am responsible for, I am not responsible for comments on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on any other Minister, or indeed anybody else for that matter.

Will the Leader of the House amplify that reply just a little? We have heard that the Secretary of State for Trade does not intend to be a Kamikaze pilot. I had some personal experience of Kamikaze pilots during the war.

A failed Kamikaze pilot.

On the contrary—the hon. Gentleman is thinking of chicken Kamikaze, of course. The interesting thing about Kamikaze pilots was that they headed direct for the crash. They were not for turning. In the light of that, would the right hon. Gentleman present the Prime Minister as a Kamikaze pilot or perhaps as a more orthodox form of pilot now?

I think that I shall leave the Prime Minister to present herself. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been a Kamikaze pilot, but at least we share the fact that in previous incarnations we were both Chief Whips.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me and, I think, most other Conservative Members, that, in spite of the slight contretemps last week, the Government will resist strikes in the public sector?

That is not a matter for me.

asked the Paymaster General if he remains satisfied with the effectiveness of the coordination of the Government publicity.

There is always room for improvement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as long as he continues to make speeches on industrial and economic strategy of the kind that he made recently in Putney, Ministers will not have to waste any time attacking the likes of the Limehouse Lefties, as the Government will then be occupying the mainstream of politics?

I shall simply say that I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman help Members of the House who are in difficulties after hearing the weekend broadcast of the Secretary of State for Trade, in which he said that we should take no notice of what Ministers actually say?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said. He is capable of defending and standing up for himself.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to explain by what strange alchemy I was not called to ask question 33?

I shall explain it, very slowly. The hon. Member should realise that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to whom his question 33 is addressed, is not down to answer questions today. We therefore turned to the Minister who was first on the Order Paper to answer questions. We then went on to questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and then to those to the Paymaster General. It so happened that I went back then to the questions to the Secretary of State for Energy. If we had exhausted the questions to the Secretary of State for Energy, the first Minister on the Order Paper, I should have called the hon. Member to ask question 33.