The title of this Bill was omitted from the Order Paper as originally printed, but not from the private business paper. I understand that corrected copies of the Order Paper have been available in the Vote Office since 10 o'clock.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to bring in the Bill dealing with the British National Oil Corporation and the British Gas Corporation that was foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on his plans to transfer parts of the British Gas Corporation and British National Oil Corporation to the private sector.

The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill was published on Thursday 17 December.

In order to refute some of the wilder misrepresentations about the Bill being made by the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend remind the House how he intends to ensure that control of Britoil always remains in British hands? Will he also tell us whether he proposes to sell any or all of the British Gas Corporation's oil interests to the highest bidder and, if so, whether he will give some preference to British companies?

The articles of association of Britoil will ensure that there can be no transfer of control into unacceptable hands. As I have already assured the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the articles will be published in due course and the House will have an opportunity to discuss them then. The precise method of the privatisation of the British Gas Corporation's oil assets has not yet been decided, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. As to the wilder misrepresentations of the Opposition, I am afraid that there is nothing that I can do to prevent the Opposition from being wild, and they become wilder every day.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that monopoly is not usually the best friend of efficiency and that the opening up of competition, particularly for industrial gas supplies, should be good news to industrial consumers and, in the long run, to domestic consumers?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The Secretary of State knows our views about the Bill and he will hear them further on Second Reading and in Committee. Given the statutory and fiduciary duties of board members of the BNOC and the British Gas Corporation, will they be allowed to express their views?

Board members express their views to me. I had a private meeting recently with the entire board, with one exception, who was unable to be present.

Is it still the right hon. Gentleman's intention that 51 per cent. of the equity will be owned by private concerns and 49 per cent. by the State? Is it not true that a large shareholder, with a holding of, say, 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., could influence the conduct of the so-called Britoil and therefore that investment interest in the company, not control, is the argument?

The right hon. Gentleman is an expert in these matters, but he is slightly confused. A holding of 15 or 20 per cent. will not bulk large when the Government will be holding, at least initially, 49 per cent. Furthermore, I do not envisage holdings of 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. It is not a matter of shares being sold to what the right hon. Gentleman terms "concerns". The whole point is that the British people will hold the shares. It will be public ownership in the true sense of the term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pension funds will buy the shares."] I am interested to hear that the Opposition are great opponents of pension funds. The House will note that. The whole purpose is that there should be the widest possible spread of ownership. That is not a vain or pious hope, but precisely what we have achieved in previous privatisation exercises, such as British Aerospace.

Order. May I express the pious hope that replies will be a little shorter?

In view of the rumours in the press, can my right hon. Friend confirm that he looks forward to the full co-operation of both the BNOC and the BGC boards during the passage of the Bill?

Yes. I hope and believe that I shall get the necessary co-operation from both the BNOC and the British Gas Corporation.

Will the Secretary of State explain exactly how privatisation will help the consumer? Does he not realise that the British Gas Corporation and the British National Oil Corporation have been highly efficient organisations? How his proposals will benefit the consumer and prevent the export of premium fuels to the Continent and elsewhere I do not know. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the benefit to the consumer.

However efficient an organisation may be, there is always great scope for it to become even more efficient. Experience shows that competition leads to greater efficiency. The greater freedom of the private sector, the escape from the constraints of the public sector and its establishment on an equal footing with its competitors will be a great stimulus not merely to the efficiency of the upstream oil-producing part of the British National Oil Corporation to be formed into a separate independent British company—Britoil—but to its future growth and expansion. There are great opportunities. I shall not say more, because I sense the beady but entirely just eye of Mr. Speaker upon me.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the research and development aimed at producing natural gas equivalent from coal; and if he will make a statement.

The British Gas Corporation is carrying out a major programme to develop technology for the manufacture of substitute natural gas from coal. I am satisfied with the progress being made.

There has been considerable progress, but is the Minister not concerned that the Government's restrictive financial attitudes towards public sector companies will have some effect on essential developments of this type?

Not at all. The excellent 20-year, £300 million programme in gasification at Westfield has not suffered in the manner that the hon. Gentleman states.

Is any research planned or taking place in the underground gasification of coal, which is being done in some countries?

Yes. Part of the work at the coal research establishment at Bretby is in situ gasification. I have pursued some of these researches in the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the retail price of electricity is currently attributable to the cost of coal.

The cost of coal burnt by the electricity supply industry in England and Wales in 1980–81 amounted to some 40 per cent. of its revenue from electricity sales.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As there is a correlation between the prices of coal and electricity, are not two markets being placed at risk, especially if high wage claims are to be allowed? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the plight of the poor consumer, due to adverse weather conditions, and has he any proposals in mind to help him?

My hon. Friend is right about the first part of his question. As to the second part, the House will recall that last week I stated that I had asked for a review of the technical standards of overhead lines. The review will be headed by my Department's chief engineering inspector. I have also today asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to report to me urgently on the adequacy of the industry's procedures and methods for restoring supplies in severe weather conditions. I shall take what further action, if any, is necessary to minimise disruption in the light of those reports. I shall not deal with the details of the reports. I have placed in the Library a copy of the press release that gives the precise terms of reference. I pay tribute to those in the industry who have been working hard to put the situation right.

Should not the Secretary of State have made a statement at the end of Question Time so that hon. Members could question him? Does he not realise that last week he announced that no domestic consumers, other than those originally affected, would be cut off? Is he aware that some of my constituents have been cut off recently?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State's answer had nothing whatever——

Order. Points of order are normally taken at the end of Question Time, unless the hon. Gentleman feels that it cannot wait. If it can wait, I shall be grateful.

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question seemed to bear no resemblance to the point that had been put to him.

Order. That is not a new experience in this place.

The direct answer to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) who sat down before the point of order, if that is what it was, is that he is mistaken. Last week I said that at that time the numbers still without electricity had fallen to fewer than 30,000—a serious number, but a considerable reduction. [Interruption.] I am replying to the hon. Member for Aberdare who asked a question that Mr. Speaker allowed. It is right that I should answer. I stated at the time my hope that most would be reconnected within a day. Indeed, they were. Within a day—by Thursday 17 December—the number was down to below 500. All were connected pretty well by the end of the week. I realise now that, as a result of the weather over the weekend, the number has increased to about 1,500. I hope, weather permitting, that they will be reconnected by tonight.

Order. Future questions must be related to the question on the Order Paper.

When my right hon. Friend examines the relationship between the cost of coal and the supply of electricity, will he bear in mind the possibility of using in some crucial areas underground cable instead of above-ground cable so that, despite the high price of coal, the consumer may be assured of a reliable service in extreme weather conditions?

My hon. Friend has displayed all the ingenuity that the House has come to associate with him. I think that, to be safe, all I will say is that I have noted my hon. Friend's point.

Ingenuity is all very well, but many people are without electricity. Would it not be better to have a proper statement?

If the right hon. Gentleman had felt strongly about the matter and tabled a private notice question, I would have done my best to answer it. I hope that all those at present disconnected will be reconnected by tonight, weather conditions permitting.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is proposing to offer the borough of Eastleigh assistance in its efforts to develop geothermal energy for the borough.

My Department is prepared to consider proposals to assist feasibility studies, and to offer some help in kind. However, substantial financial assistance is unlikely because of the proximity of the site of the Southampton borehole.

I half thank my hon. Friend for that half reply. Will he give the same support to Eastleigh as has clearly been given to our neighbours in Southampton? If not, why not?

The Southampton geothermal project is the first of its kind in Britain since Roman times. It was right that considerable assistance should be given. It is difficult, with an inevitably limited research and development budget, to give assistance to a borehole only four miles away if the technology is the same as that used on the Southampton project. If there is any novelty in relation to the Eastleigh project, my Department will be prepared to consider any further representations that my hon. Friend may wish to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now put forward proposals for a common European energy policy based on co-ordinated policies for the export and import of sources of energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made towards achieving a common European Economic Community energy policy.

There is no realistic basis for agreement on a uniform and centralised energy policy for the Community, largely because of the substantial differences in energy resources and priorities between member States. But the Community does have common energy objectives, notably the plan to reduce dependence on oil and oil imports in line with the agreed energy policy guidelines for 1990. The October Energy Council under the United Kingdom's Presidency made good progress in elaborating Community energy policy in terms of a serious commitment by all member States to these common objectives.

Do not the objectives clearly stated by my right hon. Friend require effective means to carry them out, and does that not necessarily postulate a policy? As the United Kingdom, of all EEC countries, is the least dependent on imported sources of energy, do we not stand to gain more than they do from the adoption of common energy policies in this connection?

I know that my hon. Friend studies these matters closely and has done so for a long time, but I do not think that he is right in the conclusions that he seeks to draw from his premises. There can be and is cooperation and a common approach across a wide front, notably in reducing oil dependence, by the countries of the Community. However, that does not imply a common energy policy of a centralised nature, such as the common agricultural policy, nor is there any reason to suppose that other Community countries would be prepared to agree to a policy that would give a substantial benefit to one member country.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we note and support his reply to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)? Will he confirm that no question arises from the new Bill of removing gas landing rights, which would mean the export of gas direct to Europe?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is an entirely separate matter.

Is it not extraordinary for the Secretary of State to say that there is only one common interest—oil consumption—between our friends in Europe and ourselves? What about research and development into alternative energy resources? What about the attitude to the importation of coal and many other matters that have affected us over many years in our discussions with our European friends? Are we to understand that the Government are abandoning the idea of trying to achieve a common energy policy?

These matters, too, do not betoken a common energy policy of the kind that some hon. Gentlemen have been advocating. There is co-operation and there is a joint research programme. I mentioned the agreement to reduce oil dependence as the most important item. There is, of course, a joint research programme. There is also developing agreement between Community countries on energy pricing principles. There is also developing agreement within the Community on arrangements which might be sensible in a so-called sub-crisis. If there is a shortfall of oil supplies, it will be less than 7 per cent. There are a number of matters on which we co-operate and have discussions, but that is not a common energy policy.

In view of the difference between our energy situation and that of our European partners, in the overall co-ordination of policies will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the example of the swan that did the opposite—lots of activity on the surface and serene inactivity underneath?

Yes, Sir.

Does not a common energy policy imply common price arrangements for energy within the Community? Will the Secretary of State publish a monthly tariff of European industrial energy prices to indicate to our manufacturers the competitive energy prices being charged in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that he is barking up the same tree as I did—he may be embarrassed to know that—at the Energy Council on 27 October, when we managed to reach substantial agreement, which was later consummated at a meeting of another Council of Ministers, on a common energy pricing approach and, in particular, on the principle—I hate to use the term, but it is the one allowed—of transparency. That enables us to know one another's pricing policies and practices.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made with the combined heat and power projects in the cities, including Sheffield, designated for pilot schemes.

The lead consultants on the combined heat and power district heating feasibility programme expect to report in February 1982. My right hon. Friend last week gave his consent for the Fort Dunlop CHP scheme in Birmingham.

Will the Under-Secretary of State give us an assurance that, when the report is received, prompt and vigorous action will be taken on it, since money spent on combined heat and power will give a far better return in utilisation of energy resources than any nonsense about Sizewell nuclear power stations?

That was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's question two months ago. I tell him now, as I did on that occasion, that there is no necessary relationship between the increase in CHP and the need for nuclear power stations. I should not like the House to gain the impression that there is any question of delaying this project. We have followed the procedures set out in the Marshall report. As I said before, we expect this report to be available in February. We shall study it closely as soon as it is available, and we shall take the minimum amount of time to do so.

Why has the Department taken so long to make up its mind about the Fort Dunlop scheme?

That question, too, has been asked before. It is not correct to say that we have taken a long time. It was suggested that it had been before us since April 1980. That is wholly false. At that time, the scheme was different in many material particulars. Since it was only on 16 November 1981 that we were informed by the Midlands electricity board that it had given its approval to the scheme, I hardly think that it can be said that there has been any unnecessary delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take further steps to encourage the use of coal in industry.

The Government have taken positive action to promote the burning of coal by industrial users, but it is for the coal industry itself to convince customers of its long-term ability to provide secure supplies at competitive prices.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that, in spite of the increased saving in coal, the Government could do much more to help the National Coal Board? Will the hon. Gentleman do everything that he can to extend the coal-fired boiler conversion scheme to gas users, non-manufacturing industry, local authorities and non-boiler installations? Does he regard the present restrictions as inhibiting? Will he make the strongest possible representations to his right hon. Friends to extend the electrification of the railways, because that would make the biggest contribution to the use of coal? What has he done about these matters in any case?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want me to draw what he said to the attention of the Department of Industry, which, as he knows, is in the midst of a re-examination of this scheme which, excellent as it is, has had a slow start. I am sure that any improvements will be welcomed. My Department is fully involved in the negotiations. I take his point and will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but he may wish to examine more carefully the exact implications for coal of electrification of the railways.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I, too, am a long-standing supporter of the coal industry? Would it not be utter madness, now that the industry is doing well and the miners are earning good wages, for them to embark on a destructive coal strike and thus endanger the future prospects for that vital industry?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's longstanding commitment to and involvement in the coal industry. All who share his wishes for the long-term success of the coal industry will remember what I said initially. Secure supplies at competitive prices are a crucial feature of the growing markets for coal—those industrial markets in which we hope coal's future will lie.

The Under-Secretary talked about a slow start for the conversion scheme. Is he aware that it has been a gigantic flop? The £50 million that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to spend in 1981–82 will be about £2 million. The number of conversions has been very small. Instead of continuing to review the situation, when shall we see action to get the conversion scheme off the ground?

It is always depressing to hear positive proposals greeted with such sourness. Considering those industrialists who are seeking to use coal, one might bear in mind the reasons and worries that make them not rush into a commitment to change to coal, even though, currently, there is a price differential of 40 per cent. to the advantage of coal over oil.

As my hon. Friend said, one of the main factors governing the amount of coal used by industry is its price. If this year's settlement with the miners is such as to increase the price of coal, will my hon. Friend assure industry that it will have free access to cheap coal by way of imports, and will he make sure that this can happen?

My hon. Friend seems to assume powers which do not already lie in the path of the Government. Industry is able to purchase coal from whatever source it wishes. At the moment it mainly purchases the cheaper British coal.

Does the Under-Secretary not accept what my hon. Friends have said? There is a real need for further Government action in this respect. Do we not have a chicken and egg situation in which there is a need for the coal industry to expand to meet the long-term market and that, to do so, there must be the short-term creation of a market for the industry?

As I said, the scheme proposed initially sought to add 2 million tonnes per annum to our coal burn. At the moment, industry uses about 10 million tonnes. Industrial market usage of coal by the end of the century could be 50 million tonnes. That is the size of the potential market. Security of supply and continued competitive prices to these non-monopoly industrial users will be the key to coal's success in these markets.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the self-financing ratio of the National Coal Board is exceedingly low and that the entire mining industry is carried by the taxpayer? In view of that, will my hon. Friend make it clear to the National Union of Mineworkers that the board cannot carry a 24 per cent. claim?

Even my hon. Friend will not wish me to get involved in the detailed debates between the National Coal Board and the NUM. All that we in the House can do is try to ensure that the facts relative to the long-term secure potential of coal are available to the public at large.

Does the Minister agree that the coal industries of Germany and Great Britainn can supply the needs of the European Community in their entirety? Has the hon. Gentleman seen reports about imports of cheap American coal? Will he take steps to protect our coal industry, as Germany does to protect hers?

There are many facets to the hon. Gentleman's question. The long-term potential demand for steam coal in Western Europe is, I imagine, well in excess of what currently we can envisage producing from West Germany and the United Kingdom. No country in Western Europe is putting the amount of money that we are into long-term investment in the future of coal. The Germans are supporting a stagnant and declining coal industry compared with our expansion. Our future lies in competitive, not subsidised, coal for industrial usage.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy to what extent he expects the United Kingdom to be a net exporter of oil by 1 January 1982.

I estimate that for 1981 United Kingdom oil production will for the first time exceed the amount of oil consumed by between 12 million and 15 million tonnes.

In view of that happy news, can the Minister assure the House that we have enough reserves for our own use, whatever happens in the world of oil? What are our reserves at the moment, and what is being done to increase them?

The Government estimate that we shall be self-sufficient in oil throughout the 1980s. Our endeavour will be to extend that period. Present total reserves range between 2,175 million tonnes and 4,350 million tonnes.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the present North Sea taxation regime does not exactly encourage exploration for oil? Furthermore, have we a depletion policy, and, if so, what is it?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Energy outlined the depletion policy that we were following in his statement to the House in July 1980. Since then nothing has happened to make us deviate from that announcement.

In practice is not the Government's depletion policy a combination of capricious taxation and arbitrary delays on the development of certain fields? That is the combination on which the hon. Gentleman has been working. When will he come to the House and produce a comprehensive statement on depletion policy?

I understand from that remark that the hon. Member wants a reduction in taxation on the oil industry.

No. I said that it was capricious.

The Government have been following an effective oil depletion policy. The suggestion that there has been an unnecessary holding back of annex B approvals, for example, is quite unfounded. One annex B approval has been held back—that on the Clyde field for the BNOC—and, since the date that it was held back, no other annex B approval application has been submitted to the Government.

Since British oil reserves will not last very long, can my hon. Friend give the House any assurance that the project for extracting oil from coal that is being developed at the Point of Air will not be held back through shortage of finance?

I assure my hon. Friend that progress is being made as he would wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that those industries in which energy accounts for a high proportion either of their outturn costs or any increase in such costs last year are able to compete on level terms with the industries of other industrialised countries.

Following Government action in the Budget, the November NEDC report has shown that United Kingdom energy intensive industries' energy price advantage, which in any case exists with some European countries though not with all, has diminished significantly. I am, however, still considering with the electricity supply industry the position of bulk industrial electricity users.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the action being considered over electricity. However, is he aware that many industrialists placed in the position outlined in my question feel that, although the Government exhort them constantly to be more competitive, they still face barriers to competition largely of the Government's own making in terms of energy prices? What is the position, for instance, about the tax on heavy fuel oil, and when shall we see some action on the electricity bulk supply tariff?

The tax on industrial heavy fuel oil is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has indicated on a number of occasions the difficulties of moving in that area. As for the review of the bulk supply tariff, I expect to receive the final version of the report in the next few days. I am afraid that I cannot comment on it until I have received it and had an opportunity to study it.

There is plenty of information on this matter now and there has been much questioning in the House, but, in terms of what the Secretary of State said in his answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), when will something be done to alter the position adversely affecting industrial users?

As I have pointed out already, something was done in the Budget. Over the past year our energy prices have risen less than they have in other Community countries as a whole. We are now not uncompetitive across the broad management of energy prices. On gas, the NEDC task force report shows that in general our prices are 8 to 10 per cent. below those in Europe as a whole.

In response to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend rejected the idea of a common European energy policy. In response to this question, does he agree that it is at least necessary to have a common European taxation policy for energy and a common policy on Government subsidy of energy? Until my right hon. Friend does that, I cannot see how we have a free market.

My hon. Friend is right in his last statement. Clearly it is undesirable that countries should subsidise their energy. The energy-pricing principles agreement that the Community countries reached states explicitly that subsidies should be phased out.

The Minister said that gas prices were lower or that increases had been less in England than in other European countries. Is he not aware that industrialists in Leicestershire—parts of which both he and I represent—are furious at the increases in gas prices? They regard them as totally unrelated to the cost of producing gas and consider it wrong that they should be related, instead, to the cost of electricity.

Like the hon. and learned Member, I represent a Leicestershire constituency. However, the complaint that I hear most from industrialists to whom I speak is that they are unable to get the supply of gas that they would like.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the conclusion of the National Economic Development Council that there is still a substantial differential with regard to electricity prices? For example, in the paper industry there is still a substantial difference between the prices charged in the United Kingdom and those charged on the Continent. My right hon. Friend accepts that and finds it difficult to bridge the gap, will he at least consider sympathetically proposals for capital support schemes that involve major conversion and conservation measures, which could substantially help the industry through such difficult times?

My hon. Friend has exaggerated the position slightly. I do not wish to minimise it, but the discrepancy exists in France and Germany, rather than in other European countries. The discrepancy in France can be fairly readily explained, because, in addition to being endowed with fairly substantial hydroelectric power, the French had the sense to invest heavily in nuclear power. That provides a cheaper form of electricity and the French are bound to benefit from it. Remedial measures are under review, but I hope that the CEGB will develop in next year's bulk supply tariff the load management arrangements that it introduced this year. They benefit some of the intensive electricity users.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will announce the name of the next chairman of the National Coal Board.

Sir Derek Ezra's current term of office as chairman of the NCB expires next July. We are considering the position and shall make a statement in due course.

Given the Government's declared support for trade union ballots, and given Arthur Scargill's magnificent victory in the election for the presidency of the National Union of Mineworkers, would it not usefully extend industrial democracy if the next chairman of the NCB were approved by a ballot of the whole NCB work force, instead of being simply appointed through the Secretary of State's patronage.

I am sure that coal miners in the Scottish area, especially those at the Polmaise, will regard the seriousness of that question as an indication of the hon. Gentleman's slightly irresponsible attitude towards the coal industry's important future.

To what extent will the next chairman of the coal board, or even this chairman, have any discretion over the spending of moneys allocated for capital expenditure on increases in miners' pay? If such discretion exists, will my hon. Friend give a solemn undertaking that if money is spent in that way he will not come back to the House later asking for more money for capital expenditure?

The manner in which capital approval is given is clearly known and understood. There is no methodology for allocating moneys already accounted for from capital to current expenditure.

Before any appointment is made, will the Minister say whether there is any question of altering the top structure in order to have a part-time—instead of a full-time—chairman and a chief executive in full-time control? Is there any question of that happening before the new chairman is appointed?

All such questions are worth considering and will be considered by the Government when they decide on this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State stated categorically that there was no possibility that moneys allocated to the National Coal Board for capital expenditure could be spent on revenue. There is a message coming through on the tapes at this moment of a message from the NCB to the National Union of Mineworkers implying that if miners' pay were to be increased further it would come out of development expenditure on the coal mines, thereby leading to a loss of jobs. Those two statements are not consistent, and at this stage of the negotiations——

Order. The statements may not be consistent, but the content of a Minister's reply is none of my concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has considered regarding the privatisation of sectors of the coal industry.

I have no such proposals to announce at present.

In view of the coal industry's success story under public ownership, will the Minister give a categoric assurance that during this Parliament the Government will not consider privatising the coal industry as they now seek to privatise other industries, such as the oil and gas industries?

I thought that I had made a more than categoric statement just now. To the extent that the Governmemt are committed to bringing the advantage of privatisation to all areas of British industry, I would imagine that the hon. Gentleman—involved, as he is, in the coal industry—might be concerned at the Government's inability, so far, to do that in the case of the coal industry.

Does not my hon. Friend recall—if not, will he remind himself—that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a speech about four years ago advocating that miners should take control of the coal mines? Would that not be an interesting form of privatisation, which might both encourage productivity and relieve the taxpayer of a considerable burden? Will my hon. Friend look into the matter with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East to see whether that is still his idea, as it may gain widespread support in the House?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's suggestion and recognise the new alliance with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). So far, we have not received any approaches on this subject. To the extent that a worker/management buy-out is of interest to the Government, we would be prepared to consider it.

Will the hon. Gentleman extend that assurance and state specifically that there are no plans to privatise any part of the NCB's opencast operations? That is the one area in which rumours have grown.

In my original reply I said categorically that the Government had no intention at present of privatising parts of the coal board.

Is it not extremely disappointing that the Government have no such intentions and plans at present?

I feel a little like a shuttlecock today. However, in my hon. Friend's comments I recognise that many of those in the industry feel deprived when they see the vast amounts of capital that oil industries throughout the Western world are investing in coal in other parts of the world, but not in Britain.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that I look forward to a future when miners will participate in running the mining industry? May I press on him——

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask the Minister a brief question, because we are short of time.

Will the Minister continue to resist the views of some of his colleagues who wish to privatise the coal industry? Will he ensure that the plums are not taken from the coal industry, or any other nationalised industry, by private enterprise, leaving the rest to be run by the State?

I hope that those who know the coal industry will be aware of the degree to which employees and management co-operate in running that industry. Equally, I hope that Opposition Members will draw the attention of those in the industry to the fact that employees in the insurance and banking industries and in companies such as Marks and Spencer are not exactly unhappy with private enterprise.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many electricity disconnections took place in the London area during the last three months; and how this figure compares with the eqivalent period in 1980 and 1979.

I have asked the chairman of the London electricity board to write to the hon. Member. I am taking an active interest in the current discussions on possible improvements in the operation of the industries' code of practice, and I have asked the industries to report back to me in February.

Is the Minister aware that we are gratified that he is taking steps to improve the code of practice? Will he give an undertaking to keep the position of cut-offs in London under close review and bear in mind that in 1980 they reached an all-time record? Is he aware that there was great concern that the code of practice was not being adhered to in the London area?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for proper concern over the matter. When he receives the figures from the London electricity board he will probably find that they show a material decrease this year from the portion last year. I attach the greatest importance to the code of practice. That is why, after the publication of the PSI report, I chaired the meeting between the industries, the consumer councils and the trade unions to discuss the matter. A positive attitude was shown at the meeting. I hope that the current period of consultation will lead to further refinement of the code of practice, which will be in the interests of everyone.

What aspect of the subject of disconnections worries my hon. Friend most, and in what area should we look for improvement?

I must be guided, as is everyone who studies the evidence, by the PSI report. That showed that, in general, the industries operate in accordance with the provision of the code and that breaches occur only occasionally and accidentally. There is room to examine repayment arrangments for people with fuel debts, and also the availability of pre-payment meters.

When considering those matters will the Minister also consider the growing habit—not only of the London electricity board, but of the gas board—of estimating bills because of a shortage of staff? Sometimes they are gravely overestimated to the point where householders cannot possibly afford to pay them. Will he ensure that the boards have sufficient manpower to read the meters?

I am not sure how far that is a matter for me, given the independence on day-to-day management matters of the board. However, whenever we receive letters from hon. Members on such questions we always take steps to investigate them with the relevant industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on his review of the position of bulk users of electricity so far as prices are concerned.

I have asked the electricity industry to continue its efforts to assist bulk intensive users to minimise electricity costs, possibly through improved load management arrangements.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting our gas prices below European gas prices, but does he accept that until our bulk supply tariff system is reviewed and altered British industrial users will see wide disparities in pricing between this country and Europe? Will he make the resolution of that problem an urgent priority?

I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend says about gas prices to industry, which, gratifyingly, seems to be the case. At this stage I cannot say more about the BST review, in addition to what my right hon. Friend has already said, because we expect to receive the final version of the report shortly. However, we have invited the industries to look carefully at questions of management arrangements, and so on, with a view to assisting bulk users wherever possible.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has now finalised the arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Scotland.

In accordance with the sessional order approved by the House on 5 November, I am pleased to say that arrangements are well in hand to hold the first meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in the former Royal high school building in Edinburgh on a Monday morning early in the new year, probably on 15 February. It is proposed that the first meeting should be devoted to a matter day debate. The necessary motion will be tabled as soon as possible.

Although the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee is no substitute for the genuine devolution of power to the people of Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the Committee will meet in Scotland before the third anniversary of the 1979 referendum? Scottish Tory Members of Parliament will then be able to explain why they all voted for the repeal of the Scotland Act, although the majority of those who voted in the 1979 referendum voted in favour of that Act.

As I have said, we have 15 February in mind and that date will achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective.

Given that it will be an experiment for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Scotland this Session, may I ask what range of topics will be considered during its meetings in Edinburgh, and how frequent will such meetings be? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we shall have an opportunity to consider the experiment's value at the end of the Session?

I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will assess the experiment. It is thought desirable and helpful that there should be a day to consider the Estimates and another day, perhaps, to consider a Bill. However, these are matters for negotiation.

I assume that there will be facilities for the press and radio, but what about televising the proceedings? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is there any possibility of the Committee being televised?

I do not think that I am the final arbiter. I think that the answer is "No". Indeed, the House came to that conclusion only last week.

asked the Lord President of the Council what improvements in the effectiveness of the publicity given to the progress of the Government's policies have taken place since he last answered oral questions on the subject.

I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend on that occasion.

What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that full publicity is given to the advantages for the ordinary school leaver of the new training initiative announced last week, and those for the ordinary trade unionists in the proposed Bill to limit some of the abuses of the closed shop? Is he aware that both those measures have been the subject of wild distortions by Opposition Members? Both measures will need to be explained in a plain man's guide.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is playing the leading role in the presentation of both those important measures. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others of my right hon. Friends are speaking about the measures. They have already received a great deal of publicity, some of it distorted. The clear intention is to present the important measures accurately and fairly, especially the training initiative for the young unemployed. When the Bill on industrial relations is published, it will no doubt receive a great deal of attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is a good publicist and presenter of cases. He believes deeply in both causes and I am sure that, with the assistance of others, he will achieve what my hon. Friend has requested.

The whole House must be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for arranging for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet occasionally in Edinburgh. Will he make the same arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Cardiff and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to meet in Belfast and——

Order. I am not showing any bias in interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has reverted to the previous question, which has nothing to do with this question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question is about publicity given to Government policies. Are you suggesting that there is no Goverment policy for Wales and Northern Ireland?

I never make suggestions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party is clearly trying to give the impression that the GLC fares muddle has arisen because of Government legislation? If the Government are determined, as I am sure they are, to ensure that misleading publicity is countered, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear again and again that it was a Labour Government who passed the law that the GLC broke and that it had nothing to do with this Government or any of their Conservative predecessors?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The subject was debated last Friday, and I have no doubt that more attention will be given to it.

When will the Leader of the House come clean on the question of publicity? Is he aware that the question refers to the effectiveness of Government publicity? Bearing in mind that the Government are committed to reducing taxation, inflation and unemployment, is it not effective policies rather than effective publicity that we need?

The fact that the right hon. Gentleman intervenes in that sense suggests that our publicity is better than I had thought.

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the establishment of a Select Committee on Procedure; what topics have been proposed; when he anticipates an announcement of the date of the setting up of the committee; and whether he will make a statement.

The establishment of a Select Committee on Procedure with general terms of reference has been suggested by several hon. Members, among them the hon. and learned Gentleman. The topics proposed for consideration have included the arrangements for Prime Minister's questions; Private Bill procedure; the parts of the House from which hon. Members may speak; and the arrangements for Sessions and sittings. As I have said previously, I consider that priority should be given at present to the further examination of the procedures of the House for controlling Government expenditure.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the present procedures for Private Member's Bills are thoroughly inadequate and that Back Benchers do not have a fair amount of time in which to put forward legislation? Does not his answer show that the Government intend to take no steps to improve the matter?

I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinions. The matter has been considered by previous Select Committees on Procedure on a number of occasions. It could be considered again if the House so wished. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in his remarks about the arrangements for Private Member's Bills.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to monitor public expenditure would be to reconstitute the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, with special reference to monitoring their financial performance?

That subject arose last Thursday. Most right hon. and hon. Members want to see how the new Select Committee system develops. The nationalised industries are under the purview of the system, but are not all under the remit of one particular Committee. I hope to re-establish, as soon as possible, the Procedure (Supply) Committee. It produced a report last Session. I am trying to make progress with that and hope to table a motion as soon as possible.

When the question of a nationalised industries Committee arises again, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that existing Committees have the power under present rules to set up a joint committee on nationalised industries if they wish to do so? Is the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to have a general Committee on Procedure perhaps based on the fact that that Committee, during the last Parliament, recommended the Special Standing Committee procedure which, despite strong representations from representatives of all parties in the House, he is reluctant to put on the Order Paper so that the House can take a decision about it?

All right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to see how the new system develops, whether changes are desirable and whether existing procedures can be used. That will be a matter for Committees and the House. I want to establish the Procedure (Supply) Committee as soon as possible. There were only four sessional Procedure Committees on general matters in the 1970s. I have no objection to having another and, obviously, there will be another. It would help the House if, in this Session, we completed the work of examining the Supply procedure.

The Leader of the House has expressed a determination to improve the control of public expenditure. Why is it that despite the unanimous expression of opinion in the recent report of the Public Accounts Committee, which recommended ways to do precisely that, the Government insist on rejecting the report?

That is a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

rose——

Order. I was about to tell the House that I have had notice of a point of order. I usually take points of order after statements, and since there is a statement I shall take points of order after that—unless they are of such an urgency that they cannot wait.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order does not relate to the statement. It relates to questions. I know your principle, Mr. Speaker, that you do not wish questions to be interrupted by points of order, and I agree with it. However, what you effectively did by interrupting my question to the Lord President of the Council was to preclude everyone in the United Kingdom from pointing out that Scotland has been treated uniquely. I do not mind that, but I should like to point out that there are Grand Committees—Northern Ireland Committees, and regional Committees—that could also meet in their areas——

Order. It is only because the spirit of Christmas has come upon me that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to go so far as he did with what was not a point of order.