asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he proposes to have with the European Economic Community Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss at the next Energy Council the Commission's proposals for increasing the funding of the present Community demonstration programme for alternative sources of energy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress made in this sphere, but is he satisfied that enough is being done in research into alternative sources of energy? Could not a major initiative be taken in this area while we have the Presidency of the Council of Energy Ministers?

One is never satisfied, but the Community is currently reviewing the status of the five-year demonstration programme with a view to seeing whether it might be increased. I shall take note of my hon. Friend's comments in that regard.

Can the Minister say what will happen to the wave power programme? Is it part of the Community's activities?

There are two aspects of Community activities—the research and development programme and the demonstration programme. I was referring particularly to the demonstration programme. As Britain has a very large part of the Community's wave programme, we stand to benefit from the research and development side of that research budget.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's intention to stop research on the wave programme in this country?

That is not specifically related to the question. But the Government have, quite correctly, made it clear they will, at all stages of research and development programmes, continue to keep them under review. That policy has in no way changed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place a statutory obligation on the electricity boards to investigate any cases reported to them of suspected faulty wiring without any charge being imposed.

No, Sir. Wiring installations on their side of the meter are the property and responsibility of consumers. Area electricity boards offer a comprehensive service to consumers whose wiring may need attention, but there is no reason for this to be provided free of charge.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply and also a stupid reply? Is he aware that the gas boards will freely investigate any possible gas leaks, and that there may be just as much danger from faulty electrical wiring? Will he reconsider the matter, as the problem causes enormous worry to many people?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. When people's homes are first connected to the electricity supply they are entitled to a free inspection of their wiring. Thereafter, in their own houses, the condition of the wiring ought to be people's own responsibility. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would involve a considerable charge on other consumers and on the taxpayers. Even one inspection every five years, at £30—the present cost for a domestic test—would cost the boards £120 million a year. I cannot see that the suggestion is justified.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we are all concerned about safety, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) were to be followed it would lead to the most appalling snoopers' charter?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest assessment of prospects for new discoveries of oil whether on land in the United Kingdom or beneath the continental shelf.

My right hon. Friend's report to Parliament on the development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom in 1981 estimated future finds at between 775 million and 1,775 million tonnes. Until much more exploration has taken place it is not possible to assess the possible oil-bearing potential of the United Kingdom onshore areas.

How much of that increase is due to on-land discoveries rather than to discoveries beneath the continental shelf? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the on-land discoveries made so far will pose no major environmental problem?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the onshore figures. There has not yet been sufficient exploration carried out to assess the potential. I can, however, say that since coming to office the Government have issued 57 new exploration licences permitting geological exploration work and 19 new production licences onshore. In regard to environmental hazards, I can confirm that all applications are subject to normal planning controls and are carefully monitored.

Is the Minister aware that over the past five or six years my part of the country has been speculating constantly about the great oil exploration boom that is about to hit the South-West? To date, little seems to have happened. Does the Minister believe that anything ever will happen, and can he predict when it will start?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that blocks have been offered in the Channel and the Western Approaches. There has been enthusiasm from the companies. There is also onshore interest in that part of the country, but the possibilities will depend on geological factors now being explored.

I accept that exploration is necessary, but does the Minister accept that the current and medium-term problem will be over-production? Will he confirm or deny reports in the Financial Times today that the Government are at last considering a real depletion policy?

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman when he refers to a real depletion policy. The Government announced their depletion policy a year ago. They have been following this policy carefully, to such purpose that, for example, the amount of wasteful gas flaring in the North Sea has been reduced by 50 per cent. since 1979. Another aspect of the depletion policy involved a delay of two years on the Clyde field. The Government's depletion policy is working satisfactorily and will, we hope, continue to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that last Friday, three days before the Hampshire county council was due to discuss the application of Shell (U.K.) Exploration and Production to drill in the New Forest, the Secretary of State for the Environment called in the application for consideration, following a public local inquiry? Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether that decision marks a determination by the Government to strike an overall balance between the nation's energy requirements and the environmental considerations, which must be significant in an area such as that which I represent, particularly in the context of onshore exploration for oil, gas and coal.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It confirms the Government's determination to give full and fair consideration to all the aspects which govern such a decision.

If, as the Minister says, the Government do not possess an accurate assessment of onshore oil possibilities and reserves, how can an accurate evaluation be placed on Wytch Farm? Will the Minister reconsider the Government's intention to pursue the hasty sale of this important oilfield, in the light of the fact that the full exploration possibilities at the Wytch Farm field are not even known?

Wytch Farm is one of the exceptions to the rule. Oil has been found. It is possible to make an accurate assessment. Normal commercial values will place a valuation on the field.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the level of energy prices to industry.

I continue to receive representations mainly from large energy users in energy-intensive sectors of industry, and their trade associations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that intensive energy users, particularly the steel industry, are still paying 25 to 30 per cent. more for electricity than their competitors in Europe? I recognise that, in the long run, cheaper electricity will come only as we bring our nuclear power stations on stream, but is my right hon. Friend prepared, in the short term, to exert his influence on the Electricity Council to bring about further concessions on bulk supply to intensive energy users?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that, in the longer term, the way to cheaper electricity lies through cheaper coal and more nuclear power. In the meantime, about 160 consumers, representing 25 per cent. of total electricity consumption in England and Wales, have benefited from the additional price flexibility introduced by the electricity area boards after the Budget. I recognise that this does not close the biggest gaps identified in the NEDC report at the beginning of the year, but to do so would mean selling electricity at well below even the variable cost of production. That would require a subsidy. I have to put it to my hon. Friend that that is what he requests.

Did not the Secretary of State come back empty-handed from the recent meeting of the International Energy Agency, where none of his European colleagues was willing to follow him down the path of a purist energy pricing policy for industry? Is it not therefore true that over the past 12 months the right hon. Gentleman has consistently penalised British industry, particularly chemicals, steel and other high energy users, leading to losses of jobs and a large amount of output in those industries?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. There is a later question relating to the EEC Energy Council, on which I shall seek, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye. The hon. Gentleman referred to the IEA meeting. There was a substantial commitment among IEA members to the principle of economic pricing. It is generally recognised that this is the sensible way to develop less oil-dependent economies. It is also recognised that the policies pursued by all member countries should reflect economic pricing and market pricing wherever possible.

In talking about variable costings will my right hon. Friend appreciate that these depend entirely on how the overhead structure of the industry is applied, and that there need not be a subsidy if one uses different accounting methods? Does he agree that Viscount Davignon, in Brussels, still considers that the British steel industry has to pay the highest electricity prices of any in Europe?

I shall take into account what my hon. Friend says. The basic problem concerns the short-run operating costs, which are now reflected closely in prices to bulk users. Bulk users' prices are down to short-run costs. To go below those short-run costs, whatever accounting practices are used, would involve a subsidy. We have to be careful before going over that boundary. It is possible that some of these matters can be sorted out in the review of the bulk supply tariff.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the nuclear power programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he is making in the appointment of a new chairman and the restructuring of the board and shareholdings of the National Nuclear Corporation.

Last week my right hon. Friend and I announced the appointment of a new chairman for the National Nuclear Corporation, the setting up of a new task force to develop design proposals for the proposed PWR, and an examination of NNC's role in regard to the financial risks involved in nuclear power station construction. These are positive steps to ensure that the nuclear power programme remains on course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only realistic prospect of getting energy at a reasonable price over the next 20 years is to keep the nuclear programme on target? Can he give a clear commitment that, despite the financial problems facing the Government, the programme will go ahead as planned? In particular, can he give any indication of the Government's attitude to the fast-breeder programme?

The Government's intention to proceed with a nuclear programme has been made clear on many occasions. We confirmed the two orders for the existing AGRs. I do not believe that the Government's commitment to nuclear power is in doubt. The Government have also stated that they wish to explore the matter of the fast-breeder reactor through international negotiations. I am afraid that we shall not be in a position to make an early announcement or, indeed, to make any announcement for some time to come.

Are the Government satisfied that the new appointments, which are on a limited scale, resolve the restructuring of the NNC, leaving aside the question of capitalisation? Will the Minister reaffirm that the Government are impartial between the AGR and the PWR and that choices will be made on their merits as examination of the PWR proceeds? Will he also confirm that the designs to which the Heysham and Torness AGRs are to be built are based on AGR designs which, contrary to all press abuse of the nuclear programme, were built largely to cost and time?

I am confident about our recent announcements. I am sure that Frank Gibb will be an excellent chairman of the NNC and that Walter Marshall will do an excellent job as head of the task force, which is intended to overcome some of the delays and design difficulties.

Will my hon. Friend consider the value of introducing stronger contract incentive and penalty schemes for the construction of nuclear power stations, bearing in mind that time for construction often wastes money and that the sooner they are on stream the cheaper will be the electricity?

Of course we shall consider that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been trying to work out a national site agreement. The point that my hon. Friend makes relates also to the financial risk borne by the contractors in the construction of power stations. We do not want them to work on a cost-plus basis. That is one reason why there have been tremendous over-runs in the past. I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving top priority to that matter.

When may the House expect a reply to the Select Committee on Energy's report on the nuclear programme? Will the Minister comment on The Observer report of 28 June, which alleged that the design cost of the PWR at Sizewell is so fantastically high—60 per cent. higher than expected—that it has had to be reviewed?

We hope that the response to the Select Committee will be made available before the Summer Recess. I do not wish to comment on particular press reports about the cost of the PWR. One reason why we appointed Dr. Marshall to be moderator was that we were worried about the possible over-elaboration of the design and the possible rises in costs. Nuclear power—and this applies to the PWR and the AGR—will be competitive provided that it is built more to time and to cost than it has been in the past.

When considering building nuclear power stations will my hon. Friend make a careful study of EDF and Framatone, in France, because they seem to have their relationships correct? Could we adopt the same type of structure in the United Kingdom?

I have on many occasions discussed the relationship between EDF and Framatone with the French supply industry. There are many differences. We remain convinced that the way forward is to make the NNC into an independent, free-standing company capable of taking on the design for whole stations. That remains the Government's objective.

Will the Minister say whether the 15-gigawatt programme is still on, or is the PWR at Sizewell yet another one-off exercise?

The position of the 15-gigawatt programme remains the same as when it was announced by my right hon. Friend in his statement in December 1979. Nothing has changed. The PWR at Sizewell will, if it gets the necessary planning consent, be the first station in the "station-a-year" programme that my right hon. Friend announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much of the additional finance which he has made available to the National Coal Board is earmarked for capital investment in developments to increase coal mining capacity.

It is for the board to decide how much to invest in different kinds of project.

Is the Minister aware that the whole future of Britain's coal-mining capacity depends upon a commitment now to long-term capital investment, such as the Thorne colliery, in my constituency? Does he accept that the sinking of an additional shaft there will cost £15 million over five years? Will he help the NCB to take a decision to go ahead with that shaft as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that specific projects are matters for the board. He will also be aware of the £240 million programme of extensive capital investment at Thorne which is, according to the board, on target and on schedule. Capital investment is a key criterion for the opportunities in the coal industry in the future. It has been provided by this and previous Governments.

This year coal exports more than doubled from 4 million tonnes to over 10 million tonnes. Is that not evidence that opportunities exist for the coal industry, provided that production costs are kept under control? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to go to the NUM conference in Jersey, where the two Opposition spokesmen are spending their time, and spread that message to the delegates there?

I am looking forward to joining Mr. Gormley and his union colleagues later today, as his guest at the conference. The markets for coal depend upon coal being competitive and upon the industry controlling its costs. Mr. Gormley said this morning in his presidential address that it was not sufficient just to produce coal. He said:

"We want to teach the public that the coal industry of Britain can be a safe and secure supplier of their energy needs."

Will the Minister make it clear that there will be no shortage of finance or consideration to ensure that the necessary development of the Belvoir coalfield goes ahead? Will he also make it clear that such financial consideration will involve modern approaches to mining, which will cause far less visual and environmental harm than many people in the area imagine?

Mining has changed radically over the past 20 or 30 years, as those involved in the industry are aware. The industry is different from the public's illusions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on 2 July that no decision on the Belvoir field had yet been taken. The substantial capital rightly invested in the past and the substantial present commitment show that capital will be invested in viable projects.

Does it help the coal industry to expand its market and get rid of its surpluses if it exports coal at a lower price than is charged to British consumers? Would it not be better to develop the British market by allowing that subsidised coal to be made available to the British consumer?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments about pricing policy for the domestic sale of coal to the attention of the marketing director and the full directors of the NCB.

Is it not more than likely that the mining investment programme for 1981–82 will be substantially cut in real terms as a result of the external financing limit arrangements? Has the Secretary of State for the Environment consulted the Secretary of State for Energy about the Belvoir inquiry, particularly about whether it should go ahead?

I do not think that within the £1,117 million EFL the £805 million capital investment in the coal industry this year is small. It represents a substantial amount of taxpayers' money. I explained the Government's position in relation to the Belvoir inquiry on Thursday last week.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of the British National Oil Corporation to discuss the chairman's wish for legislation to privatise the corporation.

I keep in regular touch with the chairman of the British National Oil Corporation. The Government have made clear their intention of reintroducing the Petroleum and Continental Shelf Bill as a high priority in the next Session.

Can my hon. Friend go slightly further and give a categorical assurance that legislation will be introduced at the beginning of next Session? Can he confirm that the chairman of the BNOC is in full agreement with the privatisation powers in the Bill?

It is not within my gift to give an absolute assurance, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government's intention is to introduce the Bill early next Session. The chairman of the BNOC has been fully consulted about the proposal and is in agreement with it.

Why have the Government decided to go all the way in terms of loan capital in the future method of financing the BNOC?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill will merely give the Government powers. At this stage it does not spell out the particulars of how the private equity will be achieved. We are debating the principle at present.

Will the Minister assure us that he will not wage the nasty, vindictive campaign against the BNOC that he waged against the British Gas Corporation? Will he further assure us that he will not sell off valuable oil assets—as in the case of the BGC and Wytch Farm—belonging to the BNOC, at knockdown prices?

The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for spelling out so clearly the Labour Party's attitude to the measure. I have no doubt that the many private sources that are anxious to invest in the BNOC will take special note of his remarks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that private investment is to the advantage of the BNOC, so that it can make decisions on its commercial judgment and not constantly be at the mercy of the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on developments in establishing the North Sea gas-gathering system in the light of discussions with his Norwegian counterparts.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current developments in planning the gas-gathering pipeline system.

Despite a highly competitive bid by British Gas, the Norwegian Storting has decided that gas from the Norwegian part of Statfjord and from other Norwegian fields should be transported via Norway to the Continent.

Does the Minister accept that one reason why the Storting took that decision was to enhance the petrochemical industry in Norway? In view of the recent press discussions about the possible dangers to the viability of the project for Shell and Esso at Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay, will the Minister give his view on the long-term viability of downstream petrochemical efforts in Britain? How will we finance our gas-gathering system?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. The furtherance of the petrochemical industry in Norway was only one of a number of issues considered by the Norwegian Government. I venture to suggest that a political decision may have had a bearing on the final decision. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that during the negotiations on a project such as Moss Morran the Department of Energy is constantly in touch with all the companies concerned. I can say no more than that at this time. The proposals put forward by companies for the financing of our gas-gathering system are currently under consideration by the organising committee.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that vital project—the largest industrial project ever planned in Britain—will have the greater confidence of the participants if they can see that the ultimate purchaser of the gas will not be restricted to the monopoly of the British Gas Corporation and that market forces can operate in the supply of gas from that pipeline?

I confirm that the gas-gathering system has the highest priority. The Government's intention is that there should be maximum participation by the private sector. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is a little difficult to hasten the measures when the amounts involved are of such magnitude.

When does the Minister hope to reach a decision on this matter? Is he aware that the passage of time does not help the viability of the project? What impact will the reluctance of Esso to go ahead with Moss Morran have on the pipeline project?

We hope to reach a conclusion on the final financing of the pipeline during the summer months. I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said about Moss Morran.

What impact will Esso's reluctance to go ahead with Moss Morran have on the pipeline project?

The two are not connected. Esso has always made it clear that it wants supplementary supplies from the gas-gathering system but that the main supply will come from the flag line. That should not directly affect the negotiations at their present stage.

Has not another deadline been passed? Was not a statement due on 1 July about the financing of the pipeline? Is not the major handicap and obstacle not that mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) but the fact that the Government are not willing to allow British Gas to go ahead with the project and give a guarantee or to give a guarantee themselves for the financing of the pipeline?

The potential of the project is such that capital can be raised in due course from private sources. The hon. Gentleman was not quite correct about the statement. The date that he mentioned—1 July—was the closing date for companies to submit their proposals to the organising group. They are presently being considered by that group.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's intention that the gas-gathering pipeline should be owned by a private sector utility? Will he assure us that the British Gas Corporation's monopoly right of purchase of North Sea gas will be removed in due course?

As I said earlier, it is the Government's intention that the major share of financing ultimately should be in the hands of the private sector. I cannot give a positive commitment on my hon. Friend's second point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications have so far been received under the scheme launched on 22 May for converting or replacing oil-fired boilers with coal-fired boilers.

Questions on the operation of that scheme are chiefly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I have been informed, however, that the Department of Industry has received more than 1,000 inquiries for information about the scheme.

In view of that rather heartening response to the scheme, what are the Department's estimates of the full take-up of the grant available, and when is it likely to be fully taken up?

I cannot comment on the details. If the grant is fully taken up we expect an initial potential coal burn of 2 million tonnes per annum. Any detailed queries must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Will the Minister confirm that the money allotted in the Budget for that purpose may be exhausted before the period has elapsed and assure us that additional funds will be available so that all applicants can be properly considered?

It would be nice if we could first spend the money allocated before going on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will review the scope and coverage of the scheme in the light of the take-up of funds available.

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.

I discussed industrial energy pricing with members of the NEDC at the June meeting.

As the value of the Government's recent energy package for industry has been more than offset by the increased duty on derv, does not that militate against the interests of the economies of the regions, especially the Northern region? Will the Minister undertake to consult industries in the regions about his energy package?

I take every opportunity to consult industrialists in the regions and centrally on energy problems, especially on how they can make more efficient use of energy in a high-cost energy age. The price concessions for electricity and gas, which were announced in the Budget, have an effect on one group and the now reduced increase in the price of derv has an effect on another group. There is only a partial overlap. I do not think that it can be said that one offsets the other.

Will my right hon. Friend further demonstrate his devotion to market pricing in energy by welcoming the present glut in oil and promising to make no attempt to hold up the price of oil, which would be damaging to energy consumers, especially those engaged in heavy manufacturing industry in the West Midlands?

United Kingdom crude oil prices are not determined by a Government selling price, as are crude oil prices in some oil-producing countries. United Kingdom prices are determined by commercial negotiations between producers, traders and customers. The British National Oil Corporation is much the largest trader and tends to set the pattern for United Kingdom prices. It does so by following world market trends in crude oil prices. It has done that all along.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the glass industry, which is represented by the Lemington glassworks, in my constituency, and the brick industry, which is represented by Throckley brickworks, in my constituency, are paying through the nose for gas? It is one of their biggest costs. The Government are creaming off vast sums for British Gas through the Gas Levy Act 1981. Surely we should give serious thought to making British industry more competitive with its subsidised counterparts in Europe.

I understand the problems of industries that face high energy costs. Firm gas contract prices will be about 10 per cent. lower by December. For customers on interruptible contracts, the effective benefit will be a price that is about 10 per cent. below the heavy fuel oil duty. Indeed, that is already so. These are substantial advantages. They reflect the disparities outlined in the NEDC report. They are of real benefit. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the price of gas for British industry when compared with prices in other countries may have changed since last winter. Fluctuations in exchange rates are influential factors. French industrial gas prices increased by 22 per cent. last week. These factors produce a different picture.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons for the high cost of electricity is the high cost of the coal that is still used in most of our power stations? Does he agree that a substantial injection of private capital into the coal industry for new development would be greatly to the advantage of the industry and of consumers?

I accept that competitively priced coal and more nuclear power are the key to cheaper electric power in Britain. My hon. Friend is entirely right in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made in encouraging the increased use of coal in industry and in generation; what further steps he is taking to extend this coal usage; and if he will make a statement.

There have so far been more than 1,000 inquiries about the £50 million coal-fired boiler scheme, which should result directly in additional coal burn building up to 2 million tonnes per annum.

Will the Minister use his considerable influence with the National Coal Board and the Department of the Environment to speed up investment in the coal industry? Will he meet the additional investment by stimulating usage and by offering additional incentives for using coal in both the industrial and domestic sectors?

As Mr. Gormley said in Jersey this morning, security of supply and price competitiveness are the key to the future developed use of coal. Those are areas in which the coal industry can pursue its aim to obtain larger markets through competitively priced coal.

Does my hon. Friend expect to build any further coal-fired power stations, or will they be nuclear stations? Secondly, will he indicate the self-financing ratio of the National Coal Board's investments?

There are no current plans for additional coal-burning capacity. The latest figures suggest that in 1979–80 the board's internally generated resources, before taking account of Government grants of £251 million, were a negative £74 million. We have not yet received the publication of the board's 1980–81 accounts, which will contain the current figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what conclusions the Ministers of Energy of the European Economic Community reached after reviewing the Commission's report, following the National Economic Development Council task force report on energy costs to British industry, about subsidies, tax deductions, cost of energy to industry throughout European Economic Community countries and the consequential disparities.

At the Energy Council on 24 June the Commission reported progress on the study of energy prices, which was requested by the previous Energy Council in March.

Are we moving nearer to a common energy policy and balancing cheapness and economy with security of supply? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many British industrialists, especially the electric steel makers of Sheffield, do not like to see high-cost electricity from coal-fired power stations in their regions when their competitors are being supplied with electricity from nuclear and hydro sources at 60 per cent. below the price of British electricity? May I suggest some equalising and some nuclear power from France to keep our steel industry competitive?

In pursuing a common energy policy the main emphasis must be on national policies being developed in a common framework aimed at reducing dependence on oil and developing alternative energy economies in Europe. I have already commented on the changing scene of price disparities. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the considerable French advantage, which arises from early and bold decisions to build nuclear power stations on cost and to time. They have produced a pattern of electricity generation that provides a substantial advantage over not only the United Kingdom, but other parts of the Community, including West Germany. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the disparity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the leaders of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to consider the future expansion of the coal industry.

My hon. Friend and I hold meetings from time to time with representatives of the industry. The most recent was on 16 June.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to congratulate the board and the miners on their exports and their increase in productivity? Is that not a tremendous tribute to that publicly owned industry? Will the Minister ensure that the National Coal Board receives the financial wherewithal to develop new coal fields, such as the Vale of Belvoir, and Margam in South Wales, and to invest in the Phurnacite plant, so that we can get the smokeless fuel which is required?

With regard to the first series of questions, later today I shall take the opportunity to congratulate the miners and the management of the industry on their excellent and continuing increase in productivity, which was up in the first 12 weeks of this year by more than 3·6 per cent. against the comparable figure last year. Absenteeism, which is continuing to decline, has decreased by 2 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will recall the views both of the National Coal Board and of the Government on the subject of Aberavon.

With regard to the Vale of Belvoir, which three hon. Members have mentioned today, will my hon. Friend confirm, as I am sure that he will, that my constituents, as well as the National Coal Board, have rights and that one of those rights is that the matter should be considered dispassionately and objectively by the Secretary of State?

I understand the point which my hon. Friend seeks to make. As I suggested earlier to other hon. Members, on 2 July my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that no decision had yet been taken. I have nothing further to add to that statement.

Will the Minister bring to the notice of the National Coal Board the fact that because we shall be dependent upon coal for many years it should take on enough apprentices to ensure its production?

I recognise our priceless energy asset in coal. I imagine that the National Coal Board as well as the miners also recognise their commitment to the future of the industry and, therefore, to the recruitment of juveniles, which they can obtain only if the industry is successful and competitive. It is in their hands to attain that object and to attract recruits into the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to meet the Confederation of British Industry energy group to discuss industrial energy prices.

I meet leaders of the CBI from time to time and discuss energy issues, including prices.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the factors affecting industrial energy costs is the high level of duty on heavy fuel oil? Will he clarify the reason why some previous contracts for Norwegian gas seem to prevent us from reducing the heavy fuel oil duty?

The duty on heavy fuel oil is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made it clear at the time of the Budget that a reduction in heavy fuel oil duty would not be a cost-effective way of helping British industry, because of the influence of some gas contracts.

Is the Secretary of State aware that an hour ago a member of the CBI, Messrs. Tootal, announced the closure of a major factory in my constituency—Condura Fabrics, of Flimby? Inasmuch as the availability of subsidised energy and feedstock prices in America and in the European Community have, in part, been responsible for that closure, will the Secretary of State, having already denied us a form of inquiry into energy costs on a regional basis, now inquire of that company specifically why it had to close, in the light of those energy costs?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that with the deregulation of oil prices in the United States, for which this Government and many others were pressing, and with the active interest of the United States in deregulating gas prices, some of the severe pressure of the disparities of feedstock prices between here and the United States that arose last summer have been reduced. On that front, therefore, although one does not welcome any news of closures, some of the pressures have been eased—

What about jobs in my constituency?

—as they have for the foundry industry, where there has been a reduction in the list price for foundry coke. That, too, has helped and is a benefit that helps jobs.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some parts of the chemical industry are suffering considerable disadvantages these days, not just because of energy prices, although energy prices are the major factor which is putting the chemical industry at a great disadvantage compared with Continental competitors? Will he bear in mind that high energy cost products, such as chlorine, are being put at a disadvantage by as much as 50 per cent. higher costs in this country compared with Germany? Will he look at that matter in particular?

I shall bear those points in mind. The NEDC task force identified the disparities at the beginning of 1981 in its examination of energy prices. Since then, with the fluctuations in exchange rates, there is likely to have been some change in energy pricing. At the same time, prices are rising on the Continent. I mentioned earlier that electricity prices in France rose by 15 per cent. last week and industrial gas prices by 22 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to alter the periods of the year when Parliament sits.

I have at present no such proposals to make to the House.

Why is it that the dates of the Summer Recess seem to be determined more by the dates of the grouse shooting season than by the dates of children's school holidays, which in Scotland are sometimes almost over by the time Parliament goes into recess? Would it offend the Tory blood sport brigade all that much if this year the 12 August deadline were supplanted by Prince Charlie's wedding date?

As the House knows, many factors have to be taken into account in deciding the dates of the recess. I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with all hon. Members whose children are on holidays while we are not in recess. As recently as 1978 a Select Committee considered this and related issues. It found that most Members preferred the present arrangements. Therefore, it recommended no fundamental change. When the House debated the Select Committee's report there was no indication of an opposite weight of opinion. That does not alter the fact that I have sympathy with hon. Members whose children are on holiday while the House is sitting. However, until the House as a whole decides to make a change the existing arrangements will continue more or less as before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it seems to me and to many others that whatever Government are in power the prosperity of Britain grows in inverse proportion to the amount of time that we spend legislating in this place? In an attempt to help the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the next Session there is a considerable reduction in the number and weight of Government Bills, so that we may get away from this place a good deal earlier?

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that our legislative programme has been somewhat lighter this Session than in the previous Session. We shall have to await what the Government decide for the next Session. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's request and the desire of the House to have less legislation.

I have every sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) that the Government should legislate as little as possible. The proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would not necessarily mean spending more time in the House; it would mean dividing the time in a more sensible manner.

The House can look at the matter again. However, when it was considered as recently as three years ago it became clear that the weight of opinion was to keep sittings more or less on the present pattern. I take a relaxed view about whether that is altered. The question is whether we should again so soon ask a Committee to consider the matter. I shall consider that possibility, but I have not received sufficient indication that opinion has changed to think that at the moment that would be an appropriate idea.

Would not a sensible way to deal with the matter be to let the House decide again? After all, this is a new Parliament. There has been a big change, for good or evil, in the hon. Members who have taken their seats. That being so, I do not believe that we need another Select Committee, but it might not be a bad idea to let the House discuss the matter.

I shall consider that possibility.

asked the Paymaster General what steps he is taking to publicise Government policy upon the benefits of European Economic Community membership.

Government Departments are each responsible for different areas of policy affecting our European Community membership and take steps to publicise them as necessary. Ministers also make speeches from time to time on the benefits of membership, and I myself made such a speech to the Conservative Commonwealth and Overseas Council on 6 May.

Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to take the House into his confidence with regard to his exciting new programme to put the facts of the Community before the British public? Many of us would like to help to put the facts of the Community before the public. What truth is there in the report in The Guardian of Ministers having to put in returns to him on a weekly basis of what speeches they are making on the Community? How are those returns going?

There is nothing to hide. I take every opportunity, as do all Ministers, to make the facts available. It is true that recently I have been looking at the Community from a regional point of view and obtaining material from the Commission, the Foreign Office and other sources about the regional impact of the Community. There is nothing new about that.

Will the Paymaster General give the greatest possible publicity to the recent report of the directorate of research and documentation of the European Assembly, which says, first, that the United Kingdom would be better off financially if it left the Community and, secondly, that there would be no great difficulty in its doing so legally or in any other way?

I do not accept those arguments. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government believe that our membership is overwhelmingly in the national interest. We take such opportunities as we think appropriate to explain why we take that view, and the importance of it. Therefore, I do not believe that it is likely that I shall do much about the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the facts that is not in dispute is that the European Community is by far our largest export market? Is any information available on the regional balance of those exports and therefore how many jobs in each region are dependent upon our continuing membership of the Community?

I am in the process of obtaining figures which I hope will answer that question. It seems to me that a presentation on a regional basis, in some cases, would be of more interest to the people in the regions than a national presentation.

Does the Paymaster General recall that a great inducement in the referendum campaign for people to vote to stay in the EEC was that it would help employment? How does he explain that when unemployment has doubled in the past few years and is increasing by more than 1 million a year, and countries outside the EEC, such as Austria and Norway, have a much lower unemployment?

One should be careful about the conclusion that one draws from that. Unfortunately, unemployment is increasing in a great many countries. However, our exports to European and Community countries have increased more than those to other countries, and the number of jobs that that provides is considerable and has been increasing. That is another reason why our membership is an important part of our national policy.

Did my right hon. Friend have a chance this morning to read a remarkable article in The Times, which pointed out that the Labour Party's foreign and defence policy is almost entirely consistent with Russian military and foreign policy? Is he aware that the article states that one of the most important planks of both Labour and Russian policy is that Britain should withdraw from the EEC?

I have no doubt that that matter will be debated a great deal further, but we have the responsibility to explain why it is in our interests to remain in the Community, and that we try to do. Equally, it is vital for the defence of the country that we remain in NATO, and that depends on an agreement with our Allies, which is critical. I read the article, and I have a certain sympathy with it.