asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress made in financing the gas-gathering system for the North Sea.

The gas-gathering organising group has invited parties with an economic interest in the project to consider participation in the financing. The Bank of Scotland is discussing interim bank financing with a group of banks, and I understand that a report will be submitted soon to the organising group.

Is it the Minister's contention that that report should be made available to Parliament for discussion? I ask that because there is increasing disquiet that the Government are raping the gas industry to the tune of £1·6 billion and are at the same time scraping round the private sector to obtain funds to finance this important gas-gathering system, which is vital to the interests of my constituency?

It would not be suitable to make such a report available to Parliament, because this matter is part of a commercial negotiation. Parliament could contribute nothing beneficial at this stage.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that work of the gas-gathering pipeline is up to date? When will there be private share ownership of the gas-gathering pipeline system?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the arrangements for the gas-gathering system are up to date. The organising group is making good progress. Approximately £8 million has already been spent, with pre-construction surveys and so on. It is not intended to make private shareholdings available now, but that is an option for the future.

Does the Minister accept, however, that there is concern that there has been slippage in the time scale of the financing arrangements for the gas-gathering pipeline? Will he look into those complaints? Further, will he take on board the fact that the Norwegian gas-gathering pipeline may be going ahead at the same time? That will bring a combined demand for pipe-laying barges and other hardware, which might push up the prices of those items to high levels, if the equipment can be found.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that, naturally, these things take time. A. large quantity of gas and an enormous amount of money are involved. It would be unrealistic to think that arrangements could be concluded overnight. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that the Norwegians must make their own decisions on those matters. Even so, it is unlikely that the Norwegian pipeline will compete with our pipeline on time scale. We believe that our pipeline will be completed in the 1984–85 period that has been envisaged. We do not expect the Norwegian pipeline to be able to compete with that for progress.

Is the Minister aware that the delays and uncertainties about getting the scheme off the ground are doing considerable damage not only to the industries of my hon. Friends and others, but to the hopes of others, including the Norwegian authorities, in the scheme? There are severe doubts about whether the gas-gathering pipeline will be built in anything like the time scale that the Minister suggests.

I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. Companies are not apprehensive. Naturally, everyone wants the scheme to get off the ground as soon as possible, but the negotiations are vital both to the companies and to the Government. They must take a Little time.

asked the Secretary of State for energy whether he intends to take any initiatives towards the development of a European Economic Community energy policy.

Community policy on energy matters is continually developed through discussion in the Energy Council, in which the United Kingdom plays a full role.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that is being made towards the fulfilment of the Community commitment to the economic pricing of energy?

The European Commission is conducting an examination of the common principles of energy pricing in Europe. No one is pressing for a harmonisation of the prices. That would be absurd, with the continual fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the Commission is pressing on with an examination of the principles. That is progress in the right direction.

If I may use the analogy of fisheries and agriculture, would it not be a good idea, and possibly our right, when there has been an Energy Council meeting in the EEC, for a report to be made to the House?

At the appropriate time, reports are made to the House. Whether they are written or oral is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and for the convenience of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the National Economic Development Council report on comparative energy prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in the light of the National Economic Development Council energy task force report.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is taking in consequence of the National Economic Development Council energy task force report published on 4 March.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take on the National Economic Development Council report on comparative costs of industrial fuels.

Energy supply industries are implementing measures which, in addition to steps already taken last year, will provide considerable benefit, particularly to large energy intensive users. The NEDC task force report was fully taken into account in reaching these decisions.

Despite the welcome adjustments, is my right hon. Friend aware that heavy energy users still have to face prices that are uncompetitive with those of their European counterparts, let alone those in the United States, Canada, Scandinavia and even Japan? Will he therefore bring forward further proposals to adjust the disadvantage, reconsider the heavy fuel oil duty and, last but by no means least, take action over the 30 per cent. premium on coking coal?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the new measures. Action has been taken successively over the past year. The price plateau announced by the BGC will go a considerable way towards offsetting the disadvantage to bulk energy users, which was mainly, although not entirely, caused by the steep climb in sterling, which distorted comparative prices.

Order. Hon. Members should ask only one supplementary question and only one should be answered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the measures announced in the Budget, large and continuous energy users are not satisfied that energy costs are down to those of their European competitors? Will he take on board the fact that it is a question not of theoretical economics and margin of costing, but of the competition that our industry has to face?

My hon. Friend is right about competition. The Government wish to see the competitive production of energy, as of all other goods. The gas price plateau will put us broadly in line with the remainder of Europe, remembering that 95 per cent. of all users are already in line, as the NEDC report confirms, but, as I said, we have a long-term structural problem to overcome with electricity. Our price, including duty, for heavy fuel oil is probably one of the lowest in Europe.

What guarantee does the gas price plateau give if there is future fluctuation in comparative overseas prices, and particularly if the exchange rate continues to change? Will the Secretary of State urge the BGC to consider new contractual arrangements with the 15 per cent. of intensive users, which take about 85 per cent. of the total usage in order to protect them from that form of overseas competition?

I should be happy to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions, but I shall answer only the first. Energy prices cannot move up and down as exchange rates fluctuate. It would make the system impossible to operate. As I said, we believe that our energy prices should be competitive, like all other prices, although we should not hand out subsidies where industries are not covering costs, nor abandon economic prices. Because of hideous past errors, competitive electricity pricing will take time to achieve.

On the day on which the Italian Government have given artificial assistance to exports, may I emphasise to my right hon. Friend and the Government that unless they come up trumps our industrialists are in danger of losing most of the tricks?

We wish to hold as many trumps as possible, one of which is security of energy supply, which many other countries, including our Italian friends, lack. Let us not foret that. Help for individual industries through the difficult transitional period is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. Much the most sensible aim in our energy policy is to stick to economic pricing, while seeking to ensure that the fuel supply industries are fully sensitive to their customers' needs, particularly in the difficult time of recession.

Are we to tell heavy energy users, who continue to contact us, that the provisions in the Budget are the Government's only response to the NEDC task force report?

Keeping a gas price plateau for industry while Continental gas prices are set to rise rapidly will place our heavy users in a favourable position. Our domestic gas prices are by far the cheapest in Europe, although that fact may not necessarily be welcome to industry. The right hon. Gentleman should not belittle what has been done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is to be discussed in my motion on Friday? Is he further aware that unless he shortly brings forward adequate proposals he will force energy intensive industries into decline?

I was aware of the debate that is to be held in the House because of my hon. Friend's efforts. His services to the House are unending. In preparing for that debate, will he examine carefully our energy position vis-a-vis our Continental and world competitors? He will be the first to recognise that, although the French have an advantage because of cheaper nuclear power, it will take us time to equal. In many other areas we have competitive prices. Indeed according to the NEDC 95 per cent. of all our consumers have broadly competitive prices with Europe. In addition, we have security of supply. I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise those points in the debate that he is usefully and helpfully promoting.

May we have slightly more intelligent cooperation between the Departments of Energy and Industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he has been busy forcing up the price of gas and electricity to the BSC, his unfortunate right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has had to foot the bill from the taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "forcing up". I find it highly disagreeable that prices have to rise, but rises were necessary to cover the costs of supplying electricity. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that costs should not be covered, who does he suggest should pick up the tab? Where is the money to come from? It does not grow on trees.

How much of the extra Budget provision for bulk energy users will go to the steel industry? Can my right hon. Friend spell out precisely how the provisions will benefit bulk energy users, particularly a steel firm which alleges that its electricity is costing 50 per cent. more than the cost to its Continental competitors?

The electricity industry will announce precise details and put them into practice after 1 April. It is already discussing with customers how it can help. Customers that can be helped will be those with a particularly high load factor who can meet the peak pattern of electricity supplies. The gain in terms of a reduced increase in tariff will be quite substantial. However, I am afraid that we shall not be in the league we should have been in had we had lower cost electricity generally as a result of a larger nuclear element, which is what we need.

We hope that the proposals in the Budget will be of some help, but will the Minister reassure the steel industry, in both the public and private sectors, that further help will be forthcoming if the end result of the task force recommendations is to leave it still in an uncompetitive position in relation to German and French producers?

The general problems of the steel industry world-wide are considerable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has addressed them vigorously. On the energy side, however, as I have explained, provisions have been made—not only in the last Budget, but previously—to ease the burden of electricity costs for large users in this country. The disparity with France, however, which is of particular concern to the steel industry, will remain, for the simple reason that decisions that should have been taken to build nuclear in the 1970s were met instead with dithering and indecision by the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement of his policy of allocations of seventh round exploration licences to smaller independent companies, including those registered in the United Kingdom.

The invitation to apply for seventh round licences detailed the criteria against which all applications would be examined. Many of the applications, including smaller independent companies, were successful, and a good number of such companies were British.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on encouraging the independents in the latest allocations and groupings. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the extra financial and fiscal burdens facing all oil companies will not make it that much more difficult for them over the next few years to get down to drilling and new discoveries, against the background of anxieties that are beginning to develop that, unfortunately, the reserves may not last for as long as some optimists believe?

I remind my hon. Friend that none of those who have applied for licences has failed to take them up. I accept that there is anxiety and that nobody likes taxation, but I believe that the taxation being imposed on the oil companies is fair, and will be seen to be fair, and that the North Sea will continue to be one of the most attractive investment areas in the Western world.

Was not the proportion of operator-ships given to United Kingdom companies far lower in the seventh round than in previous rounds? Will that not do considerable damage to United Kingdom industrial involvement in the North Sea oilfields?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the number of operatorships in the private sector is substantially higher. Moreover, I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the seventh round six small independent companies have obtained operatorships.

Will my hon. Friend explain why these licences cannot be sold by auction, as such a system would, first, reduce the dangerously wide discretions exercised by his Department and, secondly, raise much needed revenue, without recourse to the fashionable fallacy of retrospection?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The discretion to which he refers is important for British industry. It is right and proper that companies that have given full and fair opportunity to British industry to participate should be in a position to have that discrimination exercised in their favour.

Will the Minister give an assurance that his licensing and taxation policy will not endanger essential orders coming to United Kingdom companies, particularly British Shipbuilders? Will he give a specific assurance that any further development of the Claymore field by Occidental Oil will be carried out by United Kingdom-based equipment?

Obviously I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance of that kind, but I can tell him that the operators are well aware of the Government's wish that as much benefit as possible should come to British industry, from wherever the exploration is taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to increase private sector participation into the purchase and resale of North Sea gas.

This area of policy is being considered. Meanwhile, it is open to the private sector to seek greater participation under the terms of section 8 of the Energy Act 1976, which has so far been little used.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that it is now some six months since his right hon. Friend first referred to the fact that this matter was being considered? Is it not about time that an announcement was made?

This is an extremely complicated matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there are all sorts of delicate issues that need to be considered. A further point to be borne in mind is the statutory position of BGC and its obligation to supply. I assure my hon. Friend that this is not a simple question.

If more middle men are introduced and participate in the resale of gas, will not the cost to industry and to consumers be increased as a result of their profit motive?

That is a point of view, but where a monopoly exists it is subject to proof. At the moment, there is considerable controversy about gas prices. It is therefore right that this should be examined.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will undertake that no further action will be taken on the nuclear power programme until the Government have completed their consideration of the report of the Select Committee on this subject.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the report has blown sky-high most of the assumptions on which his absurd 13–15 gigawatt nuclear power programme was based, both in terms of the need for this group of power stations from the point of view of demand and in terms of the capacity of the nuclear power industry to build one station per year for the next 10 years?

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Secretary of State's statement of December 1979 made it clear that future ordering of nuclear stations would depend upon electricity demand at the time and on the performance of the industry. It would depend upon the circumstances at the time. The two immediate next steps—the construction of the AGRs and proceeding up to the inquiry into the PWR—were not recommended against by the Select Committee, but we shall, of course, come to the House with a response to the Committee's report.

Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has not read the Select Committee's report? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the main thrust of the report was not an anti-nuclear stance, but simply the expression of concern that, because of its present structure and the choice of reactor, the British nuclear industry will not be able to build nuclear power stations as cheaply and economically as our competitors, and that we shall therefore not necessarily get the cheaper electricity that countries such as France will have unless we do something more positive about it?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and also with his second point. If we are to get the full benefits of nuclear power in this country, we must build stations more to time and to cost than we have in the past.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in effect, he has just announced a retreat from nuclear power on behalf of the Government in that he has announced that the Government will make a statement later about nuclear power policy? However, has not the reappraisal of the whole question been caused by the economic recession that the Government have engineered?

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear at the time of the statement on nuclear power in December 1979 that what he was announcing was the electricity industry's best estimate of the requirements of nuclear power over the next decade. At the same time, he clearly said that it would be developed step by step in accordance with the state of the economy and the state of demand for electricity. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report, he will find that that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the rate of licensing in the North Sea.

I am satisfied that the rate of licensing that we have achieved provides a sound basis for continuing exploration on our continental shelf.

Is my hon. Friend aware that two of the exploration licences granted prior to 1980 were granted to companies with strong South African connections? Will he tell the House in which year those licences were granted and who was the Secretary of State for Energy at the time?

My hon. Friend is correct. A firm with South African interests was last granted a licence during the fifth round of licensing. As I recall, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State at the time. If I am not mistaken, the hon,. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was then a Minister at the Foreign Office.

Is my hon. Friend impressed by the consistencey of the Opposition's energy policy and by the long memory of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands)?

I do not wish to comment further on that issue.

The next Labour Government will prevent any further South African involvement in North Sea oil, and will do everything in their power to stop it. Is the Minister aware that we shall, instead, start to promote more British interests rather than allow the creeping and sinister elements that are intruding into North-Sea oil development?

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a future Labour Government—I assume of the Left rather than of the Right—will discontinue the practice followed by successive Governments, in that there will be a discriminatory attitude on nationality in future licensing awards?

Order. We shall get into great difficulties if the Government ask the Opposition to answer questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions have taken place between his Department and Rolls-Royce on the development of barge-mounted mobile nuclear reactors.

Rolls-Royce discussed its proposal for the development of a barge-mounted mobile nuclear reactor with my officials in the first part of 1980. The company subsequently decided, for commercial reasons, not to proceed with its proposal.

Bearing in mind the pioneering work of Rolls-Royce in this important area, will my hon. Friend press the Commission to analyse the needs of the ACP and member States for local and regional electricity generating capacity of up to 200 megawatts, with a view to reducing their heavy dependence on oil as a result of this alternative energy source?

I shall certainly examine what my hon. Friend has said. I do not immediately see the connection with Rolls-Royce, but at the next meeting of the Council I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

If European money can be used for a project of that sort, is that not precisely the way in which the Community can contribute towards the development of the Third world, which has specific needs in this regard?

We shall bear that in mind and consider taking it up at European level. So far as I know, the project was not put to us specifically on the basis of its being a European project. It was one for development in this country. Discussions took place on whether the British Government could support it. As I have explained, the company felt that it was not a viable scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what new financial arrangements have been made with the National Coal Board to ensure maximum production of coal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional amounts he expects to be provided to the National Coal Board following his discussions with the industry.

I am at present reviewing the NCB's financial arrangements. It is too soon to say what the outcome of that examination might be.

What action do the Government propose to take to substitute more British coal for imported coal, in view of the large stocks in South Wales? Do the Government propose to help with the additional costs that will be involved in withdrawing the pit closure proposals?

At the recent tripartite meeting all sides sought to limit imports to an irreducible minimum. At that meeting, on 11 March, Sir Derek Ezra stressed that there were uncertainties in trying to establish the exact cost. He estimated the cost of import substitution to be between £100 million and £200 million.

Is the Minister aware that miners sometimes question statements by the Government? Will he give an assurance that money will be made available to keep open the pits that were due to close before the recent discussions between the NCB and the Government, either until agreement is reached with the NUM or until they must close because of seam exhaustion?

I am sure that all hon. Members realise that the hon. Gentleman is seeking an assurance on a matter that is in no part of the Government's responsibility. Individual pits and the details concerning their management are matters for the NCB and the unions under the normal consultative procedure.

Before more taxpayers' money is made available, can my hon. Friend say what is happening to the £74 million per annum that is being lost on the 23 pits that the NCB hoped to close this year? Is it not the case that of the 13,000 people employed in them, more than two-thirds were to be re-employed? Can my hon. Friend assure us that this matter will be tackled in a sensible way?

Again, we are encroaching on detailed discussions about the management of the board's business. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in all these areas we are concerned about valuable taxpayers' money being used as subsidies.

Will the Minister confirm that the NCB did not propose to close all the pits that his hon. Friend suggested? We are aware that negotiations are still going on and that there is everything to play for. However, will the Minister comment on the enhanced payments under the miners' redundancy pension scheme? Does he agree that that has been misrepresented in some quarters, in that the lump sums have been added to the weekly pension thus presenting it as a total payment? That is grossly misleading and unfair.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that last Wednesday we debated the orders for enhanced redundancy payments. At that time both sides of the House sought to make it clear that the payments stretched over many years—in many cases, over 10 years—and that the information that had appeared in the media was somewhat exaggerated.

Is not the wider use of British coal now every bit as important as maximum production? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department and others are making every effort to publicise widely the Chancellor's recently announced scheme to encourage the direct use of coal in British industry?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has again drawn the attention of the House to the scheme announced in the Budget by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend is right. Happily, production is not the key problem. It is how we use the coal. It is, therefore, crucial that our coal industry remains efficient and competitive so that we can develop in the new markets, especially the industrial markets.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to talk about the disposal of the hydrocarbons which will be landed from the gas-gathering pipeline.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of BGC from time to time and discussion covers a range of issues, including on occasion the disposal of hydrocarbons which will be landed from the gas-gathering pipeline.

With regard to the disposal of the gas to industry, does my hon. Friend not recognise that there will have to be a new formula in order to assess the price of gas? Its price should not be linked with fuel oil, because the Chancellor has told us that the fuel oil tax will not be reduced.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but these are matters for negotiation between the BGC and the producers and users.

Does the Minister accept that, while some matters may be the subject of negotiation between the producers and the users, we must consider the overall national advantage? Will he give an assurance that, at least in the medium term, the disposal of ethane will be down the line to Moss Morran, Braefoot Bay and the central industrial belt of Scotland, and not round the corner to Cromarty Firth?

My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear the pattern of disposal that the Government would wish to see. These considerations must always be governed by the financial implications and the price that people are prepared to pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest production costs of the Central Electricity Generating Board for generating electricity from nuclear power, coal-fired and oil-fired stations, respectively.

The latest available information is set out in appendix 3 of the CEGB's annual report and accounts 1979–80, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This shows that in 1979–80, on the basis and assumptions used, stations commissioned since 1965 produced electricity at roughly the following costs—nuclear power, 1·3p/KW hr; coal-fired, 1·5p/KW hr; oil-fired, 1·9p/KW hr.

I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that they show that we should concentrate on nuclear power, and also that we should make every effort to keep down the costs of the other fuel-fired stations?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government have made it clear that they wish to see the development of nuclear power in this country. That has been the subject of questions earlier this afternoon.

Is the Minister aware that the placing of the orders for the two AGR stations at Torness and Heysham, which were approved by the previous Administration, is being held up by an absurd financial dispute between the National Nuclear Corporation and the CEGB? The right hon. Gentleman talks about the previous Administration dithering. When will he stop dithering?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an extremely serious matter. There is some disagreement between the CEGB and the NNC, and that is a business matter between the board and its suppliers. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take this matter very seriously. Immediately after Question Time today we are to have a meeting with those concerned in order to discuss this subject.

When will the Government introduce measures to restore genuine competition in the electricity industry, so as to improve efficiency and enable the consumer to get a better deal?

We have announced our intention to remove the monopoly that the electricity supply industry enjoys in the supply of electricity. We have in mind a legislative vehicle for that idea at a fairly early date.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the progress being made on coal liquefaction; and if he will make a statement.

The NCB has developed two very promising oil-from-coal processes, and discussions are at present taking place with the board on the best course for further action. I am satisfied with the progress of these discussions.

Does the Minister agree that that answer reflects yet again the Government's complacency in this matter? Will the Minister give not only more financial support, but moral support to this most exciting project? Does he agree also that the fact that the European Community and BP are prepared to give money towards the construction of the project that he mentioned shows that it should be supplemented by assistance from the Government?

Highly complex considerations are involved here on the technical front and in the organisation of the consortium that is to participate in the next stage. The Government are well aware of the urgency of the matter, but very complex issues are involved. The Government are in the middle of discussions with the board on the subject.

Since coal gasification has been known for a long time, and bearing in mind the significance of the comparative price, will my hon. Friend remember that a long lead time is involved here? Will he therefore consider promoting a joint venture between the NCB and the chemical industry?

My hon. Friend is right. The lead times are lengthy. Economics is the key, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the extremely good work that is being done on this subject by the British Gas Corporation. We are concerned in this question with coal liquefaction.

Since the Minister's Front Bench team has been trying to tell us today how dynamic the Department is, does he accept that his answers do not smack of dynamic government? The Government have had two years in which to reappraise this project. Is it true that, as press reports indicate, Ministers are bringing in other scientists to reappraise the project, which had already been agreed upon? Is it not time that the liquefaction programme went ahead and that all the shilly-shallying, with only the expectation of results in the near future, was brought to an end?

I am glad to say that the Government are associated not only with dynamism, but with rationality. Rationality is a crucial and key feature of decisions of this nature, which affect the nation's future.

Would there be any political objections from the Government or the NUM to a full partnership between the National Coal Board and private sector interests, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price)? Will my hon. Friend pursue this matter as hard as he can?

I am sure that all hon. Members, the NUM and the NCB would like to consider the positive tenor of my hon. Friend's suggestion, which seeks to involve the private sector in the development of our important coal resource.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he intends to review energy pricing policy.

My right hon. Friend and I have made clear the Government's approach to energy pricing on many occasions in this House. The Government, of course, keep their implementation under continuous review.

In considering the question of gas prices, will my hon. Friend take into account the widespread bewilderment in my constituency and elsewhere at the scale and timing of the increases in charges to domestic consumers? I acknowledge that a case can be made for higher gas prices, but will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that that case is presented to the public in simple and intelligible terms?

I agree to do that for my hon. Friend. I am sure that he knows that domestic gas in this country has not been making a profit. That is one reason why prices had to rise. The second simple reason is that the cost of new supplies from the deeper northern North Sea is very much greater. Those are the reasons, and we should be able to get them over to the House. I know that the increases are not welcome, but they are inevitable and necessary.

How should I explain to industrialists who ask me about energy pricing that, while they have been given something in the Budget, some of them should pay more for derv, thus washing away any gain they may have had from the Budget?

There will be considerable relaxations in firm gas prices. I admit that the companies that will benefit thereby will be different from those that will have to pay more for their derv. I am referring to the intensive energy users, particularly those that use energy as a feedstock. They will benefit immeasurably.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the question of note-taking in the Strangers Gallery has yet been referred to the appropriate Committee; and if he will make a statement.

The Services Committee has once more looked at the present arrangements, and has recommended that no change be made in the rule relating to note-taking by visitors to the Strangers Gallery.

While expressing extreme regret at that decision, may I ask my right hon. Friend to acknowledge that this ridiculous rule that there shall be no note-taking in the Strangers Gallery is a relic of a bygone parliamentary age that has no place in a Parliament of the 1980s?

I respect my hon. Friend's opinion, but I do not share it. I do not think that it is widely shared in the House. The essential purpose of the Strangers Gallery is to enable people to obseve and listen. Were permission granted for note-taking to be done, that could result in a considerable number of people waiting a long time to take notes, thus reducing the numbers who could come in. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that the Services Committee has looked at this subject twice in the recent past and has come to its view after careful consideration. It is a view that I must support.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Strangers Gallery would be full of people desperately anxiously taking notes of our proceedings? Surely the absurdity of the Minister's position is obvious. Does it not devalue the traditions of the House if we continue one that is so absurdly idiosyncratic?

The Services Committee consists of members of the hon. Gentleman's party as well as of mine. On two occasions those members have come to a different conclusion from that of the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the House would wish to support them.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now able to make a statement about holding meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland.

I hope that the House will shortly have an opportunity to debate the report on the inter-party talks on the handling of Scottish parliamentary business. The possibility of holding some Committee meetings in Edinburgh is one aspect of that report.

Does the Leader of the House recall that the Scottish Grand Committee has technically been in a state of Adjournment since 9 December last year when the Committee failed to report because the Government were defeated by 40 votes to nil after a debate on their proposals to close the Scottish colleges of education? May we resume that debate in Scotland during the Easter Recess and, if there is time, go on to debate the problems of the 290,000 people in Scotland who have been thrown out of work because of the Government's disastrous policies?

It is urgent that we consider this aspect of the handling of Scottish business. I am sorry that we have not been able to arrange a debate in the past month—the hon. Gentleman asked me a question on the subject the last time that I answered oral questions. I hope that it will be possible to do so in the reasonably near future. These matters and the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be relevant in that debate.

What reason can the Minister conceivably give for the delay of one and three quarter years since the abandonment of the Scotland Bill for the consideration by the House of this mouse of a report requesting that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet more frequently? Has not the whole strategem been a cynical one on the part of the Government to waste time?

I do not think so. The report was produced in August last, and if it had not been for a change of office between my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and myself we might have had the debate by now. I hope that it will come in the reasonably near future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the official Opposition are glad to hear that there is to be an early debate, as there has been a quite unreasonably long delay in discussing the reports of the inter-party talks? He says that it is a matter of urgency. Will he give us a guarantee that we shall have the opportunity within the next couple of weeks?

I hope to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes and intends in the fairly near future—by which I mean in the course of this week—to have discussions with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian).

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what reciprocal arrangements exist for access to Galleries of this House by Peers and to those of another place by hon. Members.

The Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons is reserved for actual Members of the other place.

Is the Minister aware of the difficulty caused when hon. Members of this House cannot stay with their friends and constituents in the Public Gallery in another place? As this happens so infrequently, surely no problems are caused, especially as most hon. Members stay there for only a very short time. Will he seek to have the practice changed?

That is something that could be raised by the House with another place, but I understand that 24 seats are available for hon. Members and their guests. The hon. Member shakes his head, but that is what I have been advised. I take note of what he says and will see whether any alteration can be made. I think that the geography and the space available would limit the scope for any considerable enlargement, but I shall take the matter further.

Will my right hon. Friend please explain to the House why, on innumerable occasions, we see empty seats in the Galleries of this and the other place, and yet members of the public are consistently shut out on occasions, such as at Question Time? Has my right hon. Friend any plan to review the whole question of seats in the Gallery in order to give the public more opportunity to listen to our debates?

On the whole, the Gallery is usually full at Question Time and at the beginning of debates. I have little doubt that the reason why later on in the afternoon and in the evening the number of visitors thins out is that quite often debates here can be reasonably boring. When we have really interesting debates, which are keenly attended by hon. Members, the Galleries tend to be full.

Is the Leader of the House aware that sometimes guests of hon. Members of this House are not able to see the proceedings because Members of the other House bundle in and stand in the corner of the Gallery, thus getting in the way of guests of this House? Will he take steps to prevent that?

That is a matter that I can raise with the Serjeant at Arms. It would be the appropriate quarter. I shall take it up.

Is any progress being made on giving access to Members of the European Parliament, under controlled conditions?

Not at the moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recommendations of the Services Committee are currently awaiting implementation.

Last Session the Committee in two reports put forward proposals for a new building for Parliament and for granting access and certain facilities to Members of the European Parliament. No action will be taken on these reports until they have been debated in the House. Also outstanding are the recommendations contained in the report on the cleaning and restoration of the exterior of the Palace of Westminster, on which I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be reaching a decision very shortly.

Pending the reaching of a decision on the cleaning and restoration of the exterior of the Palace of Westminster, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports are correct that the stonework above the entrance to Westminster Hall is dangerous? Can he say when the decision will be made and announced.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There has been a fall of masonry from the north end of the outside of Westminster Hall. This has been dealt with by the Works Department, and therefore that position is now safe and secure.

As £6 million was spent on this building last year, and as £60 million has been spent on it in recent years, if it is now falling down, is it not time that we appointed a new architect?

I am not sure that a fall of masonry at the north end of Westminster Hall could justify such a categorical criticism by the right hon. Gentleman. I have not myself been involved in the architectural or other considerations of the maintenance of this building, but one has only to look at it to appreciate how very expensive it is.

asked the Paymaster General if he has been satisfied with the co-ordination of Government publicity during the last month.

Yes, but we are constantly reviewing its effectiveness.

Does my right hon. Friend think that Ministers have done enough to get over to industry the value of the cut in the minimum lending rate?

I think that industrialists are aware of it. Ministers have made every effort to get this message across, and the Confederation of British Industry has made an estimate of the value of the cut. I understand that the figure put on it was £700 million. We are doing our best in that regard.

Is the Paymaster General aware that the Opposition are very satisfied with the co-ordination of Government publicity during the past month, and in particular would like greater co-ordination of publicity on the more interventionist theories of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than on those of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

It would be ungracious not to accept the right hon. Gentleman's compliment.

Does my right hon. Friend remember the well-known dictum of Lord Melbourne about Cabinet responsibility:

"It is not much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say the same."?

I have not so far cast myself in the role of conductor, but perhaps I ought to consider the possibility.

As the details of the Budget were reported in the Sunday press prior to the Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was co-ordinated or unco-ordinated publicity?

The remarkable thing about the so-called leaks was not their accuracy, but their inaccuracy.

asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to amend the arrangements for disseminating Government information; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to do so at the moment.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the co-ordination of information about the incentives that the Government have made available to small businesses? Is he aware that there is a great deal in the Budget—and, indeed, in previous policies announced by the Government—for small businesses, and that many of them are perhaps not aware of it? Will he consider ways of improving the position?

I am doing just that. With previous Budgets my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his decisions to help small businesses, and he extended that policy in his most recent Budget. It is Government policy to help small businesses and to encourage new ones to start. We shall launch a programme to make more widely known the changes that have been made to benefit those who start small businesses.

Bearing in mind the current level of public expenditure on Government publicity, and the current unpopularity of the Government, what criteria of success should we have in mind when judging the Government's publicity?

In the last analysis it is the success of Government policies that will count. The presentation of those policies is closely related to those policies. Everybody knows the difficult time that the country is going through and the depth of the world recession. We have many important decisions to take, and obviously people are hoping that we shall be reasonably successful in the reasonably near future. We have to present the policies of the Government in the light of that situation.

When it comes to disseminating Government information, will my right hon. Friend take great care to have a major political initiative on Thursday, so that the public can have some proper political news and not be bored stiff by the posturing that is likely to take place from the Jenkinsites on that day?

It is very difficult to arrange news in such ways. Events have a habit of unfolding. However. I take note of my hon. Friend's recommendation.

asked the Paymaster General if he will take steps to inform the public of the cost to public funds of support for the nationalised industries.

The information is available in the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 8175), and the 1981–82 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

If, despite all his efforts, my right hon. Friend should still hear the view expressed—whether in passing conversation or on other occasions—that the Government should give more financial support to industry, will he point out exactly how much support is being given to public industries, to the detriment of essential investment in other industries?

There is no doubt that, via the taxpayer, the Government have provided a substantial measure of support for industry. In our present economic circumstances there is a case for providing still more assistance. However, we must never forget that that assistance has to be paid for. Somebody has to raise the money. At present there is a tendency to increase the demands on those in work to help those out of work. This is a difficult period, but the Government have responded in a practical way to the needs of the situation, which has arisen as a result of the circumstances of world trade.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself that, but for Government support for the aircraft engine industry, steel, shipbuilding, the motor car industry and coal, the whole of our industrial base would have fallen into total disuse?

Of course we did not allow that to happen. If it had been possible, it would have been better for the Government to interfere and intervene less rather than more. However, when the need to intervene arose, we showed that we were willing to do so despite our preference for non-intervention.