asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies are currently being undertaken by the energy technology support unit on the use of waste heat from power stations.

:The potential for utilising waste heat from power stations is being considered under my Department's feasibility programme on combined heat and power and district heating. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) announced on 23 June the appointment of consultants to examine nine potential sites for such schemes.

:I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Is he aware that to spend £2,000 million to make use of the waste heat from existing power stations would be approximately 50 times more productive than spending £2,000 million on a discredited American-designed nuclear reactor at Sizewell? Will he impress upon his new chief of Department the need for a drastic reappraisal of the Government's energy priorities?

:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As he is aware, the potential for CHP projects in the inner cities is quite considerable and has been carefully examined. However, there was no evidence in the report to my Department to indicate that that would in any way replace the future need for nuclear power.

:I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. Does he have figures that show how many power stations are adjacent to urban centers, which will probably use the waste heat? If not, will he supply them?

:I shall write to my hon. Friend with the precise figures. The CHP projects will require the availability of power stations. However, there are great questions whether it will be possible to harness existing power stations or, if the go-ahead is given to a specific project, whether new power stations will be required.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much oil has been extracted from under the North Sea since May 1979.

:Between May 1979 and August 1981 approximately 190 million tonnes of petroleum were produced from under the North Sea.

:As the Tory Government have already pocketed more than £7 billion in revenues from the North Sea, why are they so mean as to refuse to assist the financing of important projects such as the gas-gathering pipeline, which would be of immense benefit to such areas as Grangemouth, and even the Minister's constituency? Will the hon. Gentleman try once more to persuade his colleagues to reconsider the matter? Will he tell them that if that important project is abandoned the only honourable course open to him will be to resign?

:The next question on the Order Paper deals with this subject, and I shall make my statement then. As regards the hon. Gentleman's advice, I shall manage without it.

:What proportion of the oil currently being tapped within British waters is contingent, for its British recovery, upon not being drawn first by another country's licensees over the demarcation line, for example, Norway?

:My hon. Friend is referring to the marginal line fields, which are Murchison, Statfjiord and Frigg. We have not yet encountered any difficulty in the recovery of oil. We keep in close contact with our Norwegian neighbours.

:Will the Minister take this opportunity to state the Government's intentions over the British Gas Corporation's interests in the North Sea?

:I do not wish to anticipate what my right hon. Friend may say when he answers question No. 7.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in agreeing financing for the gas-gathering pipeline.

:After exhaustive discussions the Government have decided that companies should, in the future as in the past, make their own arrangements for bringing the gas ashore. They are confident that, following the pattern that has been successfully adopted for the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil, the producer companies will ensure that Britain's North Sea gas reserves are brought ashore efficiently in accordance with the nation's needs.

:I extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend's statement. Will he confirm that the oil companies will now be expected to build and finance their own pipelines and that the Government will not allow associated gas to lie in the ground or to be flared?

:The Government's policy on the wasteful flaring of gas is unchanged. The companies are already exercising their minds on the best method of bringing the gas ashore and we shall give them every encouragement so to do.

:May I offer the Minister not my congratulations but my commiserations? He fought and failed abysmally to secure an integrated power gas-gathering pipeline in the North Sea. He and the previous Secretary of State for Energy described that pipeline as essential to the national interest. What has happened since then, save for private financiers and private investment failing to support that national interest?

:The Government never envisaged that they would take more than a 30 per cent. financial interest in the line.

:The hon. Gentleman talked about the national interest.

:When the Government were not able to persuade the oil companies to take up the 70 per cent. interest on reasonable terms they were faced with the possibility of having to finance the project 100 per cent., which they felt was not realistic in the circumstances.

:Does not the Minister remember that when the House last met he assured it that the construction of the pipeline was in progress and that there was no reason for delay? Does he accept that, wittingly or unwittingly, he has mislead the House? How does he manage to justify the loss of thousands of jobs in the steel, construction and petro-chemical industries, especially when, on the same day, the Government announced their willingness to go ahead with the Channel tunnel, which will bring thousands of jobs to the South of England?

:Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The Government never committed themselves to the Channel tunnel. They said that they would welcome such a project if the private sector could produce the finance. I did not mislead the House about the gas-gathering pipeline. At each and every step we insisted that the British Gas Corporation would have only 30 per cent. of the equity. We had great hopes that the private sector would take up the remainder. It has not done so and the ball is now in its court. We shall wait to see what it produces.

:I have listened with interest to the comments of my hon. Friend and those of Opposition Members. As the Member representing the constituency where the gas is to be brought ashore, may I assure my hon. Friend that considerable discussions are taking place with the oil companies with a view to introducing a suitable system at the earliest opportunity? When the proposals are placed before the Government, will he ensure that they are dealt with rapidly so that the jobs that will accrue in the short and long term will be of benefit to Scotland and to the nation as a whole?

:With my constituency interests, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am as anxious as he is that the project should go ahead. I can assure him that the proposals that may be forthcoming from the oil companies will receive every consideration.

:Have the Government withdrawn irreversibly from an interest in financing the project? If they have, what obligation is there on the companies to proceed to end the flaring of gas, or will they be free to go on exercising their minds, as he put it, indefinitely?

:Since the Government came to office in May 1979 flaring in the North Sea has been reduced by 50 per cent. The companies realise that our policy is unchanged. Applications for production on new fields will not be accepted by the Government unless they state clearly how the associated gas will be brought ashore.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss energy prices.

:I met the CBI last month at its conference on industrial energy requirements and prospects.

:May I congratulate my right hon. Friend, not only on his expedition in meeting the CBI, but on the expedition of his ascent to the Government Front Bench from below the Gangway? Will he make a clear statement on the Government's energy pricing policy? Will he explain to industrialists why they are paying more for energy in many sectors than their competitors in Europe, although the United Kingdom is unique in Europe in having many natural fuel resources?

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, but I should point out that I have been on the Government Front Bench for a little while before today, even though he may not have noticed it. Energy prices in the United Kingdom compared with those paid by our overseas competitors, especially in Europe, was the subject of a report prepared by the NEDC task force a short while ago. That report is being updated. I look forward to studying the assessment of current price comparisons and discussing them when the NEDC meets next month. I shall give full consideration to that which emerges. My hon. Friend will be aware that the greatest problem for industry is the price of electricity and that the greatest problem leading to high electricity prices is the price of coal.

:May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new post? When he studies the Select Committee's report and the updated NEDC report, will he give them more than merely his consideration? Is he aware that British industrialists believe that they suffer compared with industrialists in Europe and are not convinced by the contrary argument that has been advanced?

:The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the NEDC report was an independent report. It revealed that the majority of British consumers were not disadvantaged. However, there was a disadvantage for intensive energy users. Energy prices depend partly on exchange rates, which fluctuate from time to time. I believe that the new NEDC report will produce a less unfavourable comparison for those consumers than the previous one.

:May I add my congratulations to those that have been given to my right hon. Friend? Is he aware that his answer will not be satisfactory for industrialists? Intensive energy using industries will not take what he has said at its face value and rest satisfied. They expect action and they expect it now.

:I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, which is one that has already been expressed to me on a number of occasions. If industrial energy prices were to be subsidised, that would be questionable in the sense of the optimum allocation of resources in the economy. That would lead to the practical question of who would pay for the subsidies. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address his mind to that.

:Is the Minister aware of the most recent evidence from the steel industry, which demonstrates that the competition that it faces is still severe and remains subsidised? Will he examine the way in which representations from affected industries are being stultified by the ridiculous arrangements for electricity and other consumer organisations? Is he aware that, despite the enormous amount of electricity consumed by the steel industry in Rotherham, there is no one representing the steel industry on the appropriate consumer organisation, which seems to be staffed largely from Conservative or politically marginal areas where the number of Conservatives to the acre is dense?

:I am not nearly as familiar with affairs in Rotherham as is the hon. Member. I shall do my best over time to repair that omission, but there is no difficulty in representations finding their way to my office.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the level of investment in the coal industry.

:My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board frequently to discuss this and other aspects of the board's affairs. Our most recent meeting was on 5 October.

:When the Minister next meets the chairman will he impress upon him the need to convince the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers that in return for the large amount of Government money that has been put into the coal industry they must now accept wage restraint along the lines of the restraint asked of other public sector employees, such as those at British Leyland?

:I am glad that my hon. Friend drew attention to the large amount of investment that has been going into the coal industry for many years. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have the future interests of the coal industry at heart, recognising its need for new, secure markets, will want to see the negotiations, which are essentially between the NCB and the NUM, carried forward recognising the need to protect and conserve those long-term markets in an industry in which nearly half the costs are wage costs.

:Is the Minister aware that the budget of another Department called Defence will be increased by £2 billion next year? That being so, with the Government's policy of cuts and the reduction of public spending and borrowing, the money will have to come from other disciplines. When the Minister sees the chairman of the National Coal Board, will he give him an assurance that no cuts will be levelled at the coal industry to pay for defence?

:The hon. Member should look more carefully at the large amounts of public money that are involved in the coal industry. The investment that has gone from both Labour and Conservative Governments into the coal industry is threatened, if it is threatened by anything, by the degree to which the uneconomic capacity of the industry has not been closed as early as it could have been done. That is the main factor threatening the industry—not the sizeable investment and the increased productivity that have come along with those investments in the industry.

:Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the National Coal Board the possibility of the introduction of substantial private investment in the coal industry, either in partnership with the NCB in specific projects or for the development of new coalfields?

:All such matters are discussed at all times within the industry. I am sure that it is a factor of note within the House that while many companies are investing in coal throughout the world the coal industry in this country is restrained from using private sector investment. I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says, because I am sure that the mining industry would welcome capital investment in its productive future.

:When the Minister meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, I hope that one item on the agenda will be the Vale of Belvoir. It is time that a decision was made. I hope that when the Minister goes to the meeting he will take along his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that his right hon. Friend can explain to the National Coal Board the statement that he made about the task that the coal industry faces in future. In the speech that he made—

:Order. I must ask the hon. Member to ask a question. We shall have a chance to debate the question again, no doubt.

:It is an important question. If the Secretary of State makes a statement about the question of the coal industry getting its supply and demand correct, that is a question, and a question to be explained. I hope that he will explain it. The right hon. Gentleman's seat is hardly warm in the Department of Energy. Is he advocating to the House and to the industry a reduction in coal output and a pit closure programme?

:I shall need no encouragement from anyone to ensure that my right hon. Friend joins me at the meetings. He is his own forceful advocate. With regard to the hon. Member's question, I should have thought that it was in the interests of the coal industry to ensure that its long-term supply and demand came in balance, that it obtained the new markets that we all wish it to have, and that it kept control of its prices and became efficient and competitive.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive firm design proposals for the first pressurised water reactor.

:The PWR task force, chaired by Dr. Walter Marshall, has advised me that it has reached agreement on a reference design. I understand that the NNC has approved that design and that the CEGB expects to be able to adopt it on 23 October.

:Does my hon. Friend fully appreciate the importance of nuclear power in the economics of electricity? Is he aware that the operating costs of a PWR are between 5 and 10 per cent. below that of Heysham AGR and 60 per cent. lower than those of a coal-fired power station such as Drax?

:I have no doubt, in common with hon. Members who have legitimately been asking questions about relative energy prices, especially those of our own industry, about the nature of nuclear power safety and the long-term opportunity that it gives us to have secure, cheap electricity. It is a little early to give a reliable estimate of the construction costs of the particular design in the United Kingdom to which I have referred. However, the present view is that it should be substantially cheaper than the new AGR.

:Will the Minister say something about the varying estimates of costs that have been given for a PWR to be constructed under British conditions? Does the Minister agree that the cautious view of the Select Committee on Energy is probably about right?

:I hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate the Select Committee report. However, other than making a general comment, it would be premature to comment on the detail of the relative price. I repeat that the present view is that the PWR option should be substantially cheaper than the AGR.

:Is my hon. Friend aware that the nuclear construction industry welcomes the Government's attitude and was appalled by the attitude of the previous Government, who held up orders for so long that it was difficult for our construction industry to stay in business?

:I welcome my hon. Friend's comments with regard to the future, because that is what we are discussing in the House. There is now a unanimity of view about the need for safe and secure nuclear power for electricity generation.

:Has the Minister considered delaying the PWR programme in favour of a plutonium-using FBR programme? Is he not deeply disturbed by reports that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is entering into talks with the United States Government with a view to supplying plutonium to them, when the effect of that will be to release plutonium produced domestically in the United States for the nuclear weapons programme?

:This is not directly related to the question, but it is important to draw attention to a written question that I have answered today—which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd)—in which I bring out the important nature of the IAEA safeguards that are relevant to any sales of plutonium from the United Kingdom to the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has had any recent discussions with the major oil companies about the level of oil prices.

:My colleagues, officials and I are in constant contact with the oil companies on a wide range of issues.

:Is my hon. Friend satisfied that recent increases in oil prices in this country have not adversely affected the competitive position of British industry?

:My hon. Friend will be aware that we cannot divorce ourselves from what happens in other parts of the world and that whatever the price of oil products may be they are ultimately decided by the price of crude oil, over which we do not have complete control.

:Will the Minister give the House some assurances about the discussions between his Department, the Treasury and the United Kingdom offshore operators concerning the review of the tax regime? Much of this has been conducted in private, and that is understandable, but is it not about time the Government, and the Minister's Department in particular, came before the House with their views of the reform of the tax structure, so that we can judge it in anticipation of proposals that might appear in the Finance Bill?

:It would be rather unwise of me to make instant comment on proposals that may have been received by another Department from the oil companies, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give every consideration to the proposal put forward to him by UKOOA, by Brindex and by individual oil companies. At this stage it would be wrong for me to make any comment.

:Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we have to face and accept oil prices internationally, there is within the price of oil in this country a large tax element, which has been imposed by successive Governments, including the present one? It has an effect on British industry, and we should monitor it very carefully.

:On that issue I must invite my hon. Friend to table a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

:With regard to the hon. Gentleman's, point about the influence of market forces, has he noticed that when sterling goes up the price of oil goes up, and that when sterling falls nothing seems to happen to bring down the price of oil?

:In 1980, when the pound strengthened against the dollar, crude oil prices, set in dollars, went up even faster, principally as a result of the 1979 crude oil increases, and also those early in 1980. In recent times the increased sterling price of products has been a direct consequence of the fall in the pound.

:Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling among the public that the oil companies increase petrol prices as and when they like, and by how much they like? Is he satisfied that there is competition among the companies to keep prices down and thus protect the motorist?

:I can only remind the hon. Gentleman that the retail aspect of the petroleum industry has twice been examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, once in 1965 and again in 1979, and that on neither of those occasions did it consider that there was anything approaching a cartel.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to reduce the differential between electricity prices for the steel industry in the United Kingdom and on the Continent.

:I am well aware of my hon. Friend's deep and long-standing interest in this matter. Some measures of help to large users were introduced by the supply industry as a result of the Budget. We have asked the industry to continue to offer its industrial customers the maximum benefit available under existing tariffs. The industry has also been asked to review its bulk supply tariff. I expect to receive this soon and I will, of course, give it careful consideration.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that his first answers as Secretary of State for Energy on the question of energy costs for the bulk user of electricity have been rather negative and dispiriting? There is no need to wait for another NEDC report to find out that our industries—in particular the electric arc furnace industry—are paying 20, 30 and 40 per cent. more for their electricity than their competitors in Germany, France and other parts of the Continent. This position should not be allowed to continue. Will he please deal with the matter as urgently as he can and discuss it with the industry, to try to secure some relief as soon as possible?

:As I indicated earlier, I am aware of the difficulties that some industries are facing for a number of reasons, of which this is only one. On the specific question of industrial electricity consumers, I remind my hon. Friend that help to the value of £45 million was given in the Budget. The additional flexibility introduced by the area boards has been taken up by about 160 consumers, who represent 25 per cent. of total industrial electricity consumption in England and Wales.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman go to the Continent and make a deep study of the reasons why the Continental countries are able to supply cheaper energy to their own industries, as well as to the steel industry in those countries. Will he recognise that competition should be fair and that what he has said at the Dispatch Box today will not satisfy British industry that the Government intend to do anything about getting cheaper energy for the nation?

:: I am new to this portfolio, but one thing that has already caused me some surprise is that the price of our domestic gas is very much below that of domestic gas on the Continent; indeed, it is about half of the price in France and Germany. But that is considered to be irrelevant, whereas in the industrial area, where the comparison in certain cases is unfavourable to Britain, it is considered to be of the first importance. Those who are engaged in making international comparisons ought to look across the whole front.

The cheaper electricity for bulk consumers in France is a direct consequence of the heavy French investment in nuclear power, which has cheapened French electricity. I hope, therefore, that I shall have the support of the hon. Member—and, indeed, of all Labour Members—for the Government's determination to increase the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to introduce fresh legislation concerning the coal industry.

:I shall be introducing a Bill in the new Session of Parliament.

:I think that the House will welcome the introduction of new legislation—which was extensively trailed in the press and to some extent hinted at during the Session—but we have to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government's proposals will be designed to assist the industry. The 1980 Coal Act seemed to be designed to bankrupt the coal industry. It is very important for us to have legislation that will assist the coal industry.

:The hon. Member's comments show the fundamental disagreement that exists on this subject across the Floor of the House. It is sad for all of us that the industry was not able to break even and that there is a need for new legislation. It would be inappropriate to discuss exactly why. All I would say at this stage is that those who are interested in a successful, efficient long-term future for the coal industry would want it to be free from Government subsidy, to be competitive and to be profitable. That is the only way in which it can secure larger, new markets.

:Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new legislation affecting the coal industry will not distract him and his Department from the crucial need to increase the coal burn in British industry? Is he aware that so far there have been only eight applicants for the excellent scheme to transform boilers from oil-firing to coal-firing? Will he give the scheme a greater measure of support?

:: The fact that the coal industry in Britain produces about 78 per cent. of our electricity is a key and significant feature.

With regard to the pick-up in the industrial burn, I am conscious of the slow start to the scheme. Obviously, detailed questions should go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

:Will the Minister, in the event of the National Coal Board's agreeing to the claim for £100 a week for the lowest paid miners, not use any sort of legislation or other means to stop the payment of that kind of money?

:As the Government have made clear, the debate concerning pay and conditions of employment within the coal industry is between the National Coal Board and the unions representing the mineworkers. Having said that, it is crucial for all of us who have an interest in coal's long-term future to understand and remember that to secure that future the industry needs to keep its prices under control.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Nairobi conference on the development of alternative and renewable energy sources, at which he represented the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.

:: There was general agreement at Nairobi on the importance of seeking a transition from the current major dependence on oil towards a greater use of other sources of energy.

The official report on the conference has not yet emerged from the United Nations Secretariat, but when it does a copy of it will be placed in the Library of the House.

:I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend and thank him for his reply. At Nairobi, was a follow-up conference planned, and, if so, when will it be? Was attention given at the conference to accelerating international efforts to harness solar energy, bearing in mind that the vast majority of Third world countries have an abundance of sun?

:One of the primary conclusions of the conference was that more effort should be concentrated on new and renewable sources of energy. My hon. Friend will be happy to know that the British Government earmarked £2 million as a special allocation towards an energy resource assessment scheme. For the detail, he will have to await the publication of the report.

:Does the Minister agree that, compared with the amount of money that we are spending on the development of nuclear energy, and particularly the dangerous—according to medical experience—PWR, with the fears of cracks in pressure vessels and so on, we are spending only a few million pounds on renewable sources because the Government are completely tied up and obsessed with the development of the PWR?

:The hon. Gentleman unnecessarily confuses two different strands of policy. We are spending what appears to be an appropriate sum—certainly it bears comparison with the previous Administration's record—on developing new and renewable sources. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an appropriate occasion on which to acquaint the House with the details of what is being done.

:In view of the importance of energy to the poorer, developing countries, are the Government planning any positive initiative at the Mexico summit especially with regard to setting up a world energy fund through the World Bank?

:I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is ready to support that proposal provided, as we hope, that the proposal attracts support from the oil exporting countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is now the current relative position of the prices of electricity and gas.

:Generally speaking, the average domestic gas price is about one-quarter of the average electricity price. In the industrial sector the figure is a little over one-third.

:Is the Secretary of State aware that the very substantial increases now being planned for electricity and gas prices and what has taken place recently are causing great hardship to those on limited incomes? Is there not a strong case for the Government to extend the scheme to assist those on limited incomes, which at present is confined to some people receiving supplementary benefit?

:The Government are spending more than has ever been spent before to help the poor, the elderly and the needy with their fuel bills—far more than the Labour Government ever spent.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep public unease about electricity prices, particularly among those who are captive consumers, because they have no alternative sources of heating? As the new Secretary of State, will he try to do something to stabilise electricity prices?

I should very much like to see electricity prices stabilised, but, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, they must be related to the cost of electricity production. A major element in that regard is, as I have said before, the cost of fuel used, and in particular the cost of coal.

:In view of the Prime Minister's recent remarks on nationalised industry prices, will the new Secretary of State at least confirm that it is the policy of the Government, not of British Gas, to increase gas prices by 10 per cent. over the rate of inflation? If he wishes to carry on the battle against inflation, would it not be a good idea for the new Secretary of State to withdraw the policy statement made by the previous Secretary of State and to cancel or cut the additional increases in gas prices that the Government are forcing upon British Gas?

:The hon. Gentleman is not accurate in his remarks. He refers to the increases in domestic gas prices, which were far below what was needed even to break even. The Government and the gas industry together have agreed that there should be a partial and gradual deregulation of prices over a period of three years. That policy has been agreed by the gas industry and the Government. It has not been imposed by the Government. Indeed, as a result, the gas industry even now barely breaks even with regard to domestic gas, which, as I have said, is still very much cheaper here than in almost any other country in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further consideration he has given to the cost of production and prices of energy in the United Kingdom and other countries within the European Economic Community; and whether the National Economic Development Council task force has obtained adequate information from the Commission of the European Economic Community.

:I welcome the European Commission's report on energy pricing, which suggests further Community action to improve price transparency and availability of information and movement towards implementation of agreed pricing principles. The NEDC task force will be drawing on all relevant information, including that available from the Commission.

:Will my hon. Friend assure me that Ministers will discuss the report? Can he indicate the differences between the cost of production of energy in the various countries, the prices charged and the element of subsidy in countries other than this, as Sheffield steel makers and industry in general feel that industry in this country is at a disadvantage?

:The Commission's report offers a real opportunity to make progress on energy pricing. Among the principles that it enunciates are, first, that prices should reflect representative conditions on world markets and, secondly, that factors determining consumer prices should be the cost of replacing and developing energy resources. Thirdly, energy prices on the market should and must be characterised by the greatest possible degree of transparency. In other words, it is essential that we see as clearly as possible how other countries arrive at their energy pricing so that this may be harmonised.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the report of the committee on the feasibility of the Severn barrage.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the recommendation of the Severn Barrage committee as outlined on page 90 of its report contained in Energy Paper No. 46.

:As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Energy informed the House, decisions, for example about the further studies recommended in the report, will be taken in the light of comments from interested parties on the complex issues raised.

:Can my hon. Friend assure the House that this report has already been widely welcomed? Will he, as a matter of urgency, set up an inquiry into the environmental aspects of a barrage which, as he knows, are not perfectly understood?

:A number of responses to the report have been received and it would be wrong to indicate that they have all gone one way. The Government hope to receive all the responses by the end of the year. Attention will then be given to all proper considerations, including the environmental ones.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he plans to meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of British Gas.

:My right hon. Friend has already met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation twice since taking up his present responsibilities and intends to continue to meet him whenever necessary.

:When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Gas will he again impress upon him that if we pay too low a price for gas found in our waters it will only result in lower levels of exploration and development and, subsequently, a loss of jobs and pipelines?

:I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's words will be noted by the chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

:If my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BGC, will he remind him that three years after the report of the Health and Safety Executive about risks to my constituency the gas terminal on Canvey—which represents a third of these risks—is still being run badly? Three improvement notices have been served on it, and the sooner my hon. Friend considers closing it down the better.

:At the request of counsel for a number of the parties involved with the inquiry at Canvey the date of its opening has been postponed. However, I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend has said will be noted by the chairman.

When the Minister next meets the chairman will he convey to him the congratulations of Labour Members on the magnificent stand that the workers have made against the privatisation and selling off of British Gas showrooms, which stand, in the end, will be in the interests of British clients and customers?

:I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is well able to make his own representations to the chairman of the BGC. No doubt he will also draw his attention to the report of the Monoplies and Mergers Commission.

:Will the hon. Gentleman discuss with the chairman the present ludicrous restriction on the Gas Corporation whereby it cannot provide gas to consumers who live more than 25 yards from existing mains?

:I know that this point has been taken on board by the BGC and is being studied.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether it is his policy to bring forward a Bill in the forthcoming Session to introduce private equity capital into the British Gas Corporation.

:My right hon. Friend will be making a statement following Question Time.

:Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the statement will cover the introduction of private equity into the British Gas Corporation? I am sure that he will realise that many Conservative Members will be disappointed if the opportunity to introduce private equity into British Gas is not fully covered.

:I know of and understand my hon. Friend's comments. He will not have long to wait before he hears the statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to review his energy pricing policy for energy intensive industries during the next few months.

:The Government's approach to energy pricing has been clearly set out in the House on many occasions. I shall naturally keep its implementation under regular review.

:If the lobby in the United States, by energy intensive industry, succeeds in reversing the deregulation strategy of President Reagan—to the benefit of American manufacturing industry—will that in any way determine the right hon. Gentlemen's judgments on industrial energy prices in the United Kingdom?

:As the House will be aware, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, oil prices in the United States have been deregulated. I have no evidence that the American Government's declared policy to deregulate gas prices has been abandoned.

:Is my right hon. Friend fully aware of the effect of energy prices on the competitive position of our industry? At the beginning of last week I visited a factory whose output costs per tonne rose £14 last year, of which £12 was due to energy prices. Labour costs rose by nothing. Does he therefore accept that the Government have some responsibility for the competitive environment in which industry operates?

:There are a number of elements of responsibility—if that is the phrase to use—in the lack of competitiveness of British industry. I point out to my hon. Friend that that lack of competitiveness has been a problem for many years and has not newly arisen. It has been at the heart of our industrial problems for a long time. However, it is encouraging that the latest indicators show that the productivity and competitiveness of British industry is improving, and improving at this time in the economic cycle, when it has not done so in the past.

:Does the Secretary of State realise that in his previous incarnation as Financial Secretary to the Treasury the phrase "under regular review" was a euphemism for taking no action whatever? Have things changed now that he has become Secretary of State for Energy?

:I believe that it is well known to the House that under successive Governments, going back for some time, some reviews have produced action and others have not. I have not done a statistical analysis to see what proportion of reviews produce action and under what Governments. If the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps he would let me know.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement about arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Edinburgh.

:I shall bring forward proposals to the House as soon as the necessary consultations are completed.

:In contrast with the indecent haste with which the Government repealed the Scotland Act, why are they taking so long to arrange for Scottish hon. Members to meet in Scotland to discuss vital matters affecting the people of Scotland, such as the crippling level of unemployment there, created by this Government? May we have an assurance that plans to meet in Edinburgh will not be postponed by any attempted break-in at the Scottish Assembly building by a few SNP vandals?

:I hope to bring forward proposals fairly soon. There are, however, a number of outstanding issues between the parties that took part in the inter-party talks. When they are concluded, we shall make a proposal.

:Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Back Bench as well as Front Bench Members are concerned in this matter? In that consultation, and in the consideration of any plan, will he ensure that the interests of Scottish hon. Members who are interested in United Kingdom affairs will not be put at risk by any plan of this kind?

:We shall try somehow to reconcile all the conflicting demands. We shall certainly do what we can to consult as widely as possible without causing exceptional delay.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the House took a unanimous decision on this on 16 June and that there was no Division on the matter? Does he therefore agree that there is no need for a great deal of further discussion, that there is some urgency in this and that there is no reason at all why the first meeting in Edinburgh should not take place before Christmas?

:I hope to make an announcement fairly soon.

:Is this a " mañana " question, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to implement it before the next general election?

asked the Lord President of the Council how many visits the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster paid to the county palatine during the recess.

:Neither my right hon. and noble Friend nor I as her predecessor visited the county palatine during the recess on Duchy business.

:I regret that failure to attend in the county palatine. If my right hon. and noble Friend or my right hon. Friend were to attend there, would they be aware of the great concern being expressed by a number of Conservative colleagues, together with parents and head teachers, about the activities of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which is attacking the private education that the country has provided for children? Will he prevail upon my right hon. and noble Friend to bring her pressure to bear as well as that of colleagues on this side of the House?

:I think that question that should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

:I presume that the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster visited the Duchy when she went to Blackpool recently. Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether it occurred to her that both her immediate predecessors thought that the Government's economic policy was disastrous?

:Clearly, my right hon. and noble Friend was in the county palatine last week. As the other House was sitting and she is the Leader thereof, she was unable to spare the time on that occasion to go beyond her duties in relation to the party.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a report on the Government's campaign to publicise the benefits of European Economic Community membership.

As I told the right. hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) on 6 July, Ministers take appropriate opportunities to explain why the Government believe that our membership of the Community is in the national interest, but I would not call that a campaign.

:Will my right hon. Friend explain to the British people why, if the benefits of Community membership are shared equally among the Community, the combined burdens of a budget deficit, which costs each British family almost £1 net a week, a CAP that is quite unsuited to a food-importing nation, and a massive deficit in manufactured trade, which has led to unemployment in Britain, should uniquely be felt within the United Kingdom?

:At no stage has anyone denied that there are problems in the Community that ought to be resolved, as well as reforms that we would like to see introduced. There has never been any secret about that. At the same time, there has never been any secret about the advantages of our membership. There are many occasions when these matters can be debated in the House, and I have nothing further to add to my original answer.

:Does the Lord President recollect that during the debate on the European directive on molecular engineering he gave an undertaking that we would return to the subject of biotechnology? Is there any prospect of honouring that undertaking in view of the Government's pallid White Paper on the subject?

:I would be deceiving the hon. Gentleman if I told him that I had thought about this during the recess. However, I shall remind myself of it and see what we can do.

:Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the Prime Minister's speech in the county palatine last week she referred to 2½ million jobs being lost if we were to leave the Community? As the Labour Party is now determined to take this step and to add that number to the unemployment figures, will my right hon. Friend take every possible steps to publicise that figure and give the details of the jobs that might be lost in particular industries if we were to leave the Community?

:I, too, referred to this in my speech at Blackpool. We are still waiting for any notion about what the Labour Party would do to replace the jobs that would undoubtedly be lost if it carried out its threat.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we noted with great interest his gallant efforts last week to reconcile the conflicting demands of the Tory Party conference as well as his gallant efforts to put a gloss on Conservative Party policy? Will he explain in simple words the benefits that we have received from the Common Market?

:I should have thought that 2½ million jobs was not a bad start.

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit of EEC membership is a shared benefit and that the West Germans, who export substantial quantities of manufactured goods to Britain, also enjoy the benefit? Does he therefore agree that it is in all our interests?

:I am sure that it is. Different benefits are enjoyed by different countries. It would be a mistake not to understand that there are conflicts of interest. But overall, in terms of Europe as a whole, I have no doubt that the EEC is of benefit to all the people in Europe.

:In which industries would these 2½ million jobs be lost if we were to leave the Common Market? Would they be in coal, steel and the motor car industry or in the industries where, under this Government, we have already lost 2½ million jobs?

:I am sure that a detailed analysis could be provided, not by me, but by my right hon. Friends who carry responsibility for employment, foreign affairs and so on.