asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current progress of the development of oil from coal process.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's coal liquefaction policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on Government support for the National Coal Board's project for the liquefaction of coal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future plans for coal liquefication in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that British Petroleum and Phillips Petroleum have informed the National Coal Board that they do not wish to participate in a 25 tonne a day pilot plant at this stage. I have, therefore, asked the NCB to undertake a thorough review of the project prior to firm decisions being taken on how to proceed.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those whose questions are being answered.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will regard the Government as having broken their promise if they do not proceed with the development of the oil from coal process? Is he further aware that for three years the Government have given specific promises? There have been the Energy Conservation Act 1981, the Coal Industry Act 1980 and the Coal Industry Act 1982. The truth is, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that the financial meanness of the Government is causing this project to flounder.

Order. That might be the preamble to a question, but there ought to be a question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) told us that they were keeping their eagle eyes on the scheme? Some eagle, some eyes! Mr. Moore: For those who are interested in the long-term future of the coal industry, emotion is no substitute for the facts. The Government's position has not changed. The offer of £5 million, subject to substantial private-sector participation, is still on the table. It would he remiss of the Government, and not in the interest of the coal industry or the nation, not to take cognisance of the facts.

Is the Minister aware that while what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said is absolutely true, it is not merely a question of finance, but of the Government's doctrinaire attitude? Does the Minister agree that the whole project, and subsequent projects, should be completely funded by the Government? Is the Minister aware of any other withdrawal of capital investment in the project?

Those who are genuinely interested in the long-term future of the coal industry, as opposed to making partisan political points, might wish to check with the National Coal Board, which has confirmed that it will be preparing the review so that it can clearly establish facts that it might not be wise to discuss on the Floor of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the accusation of a doctrinaire approach comes ill from Members of the Labour Party who are making no effort to dissociate themselves from the doctrinaire exploitation of his position by Mr. Scargill? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the key is to be found in Europe? Although the present contribution by the Community probably represents the maximum permissible under present policy, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity at the next meeting of Council of Energy Ministers to raise the whole issue of liquefaction as an essential ingredient of fuel policy?

My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point. I hope that he heard me say that the National Coal Board has agreed to review the matter. A review is clearly necessary. It might be premature, until the review is completed, to ask for further aid beyond that offered by the Community.

Does the Minister realise that some of us are fed up with the Conservative Government, and with other Governments for that matter, delaying research and development? For too long we have played about and lost our advantage in this sphere. Does the Minister further realise that we are giving away to the Japanese and to other developed nations—and probably to some of the developing nations—the liquefaction of coal because we are holding back instead of going forward as fast as possible?

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and his commitment to the coal industry, but I hope that he will listen carefully to me. There is no delay, other than that needed to ensure the long-term success of such developments. That success is what all of us who are interested in the coal industry wish to see.

Should we not recognise that coal conversion will be economic only if the price of coal remains competitive, and that this will happen only if the phasing out of uneconomic, high-cost pits is allowed to continue?

We are at this moment considering the scientific aspects of the project. My hon. Friend is correct to draw to the attention of the House a key ingredient of all liquefaction projects—the cost of the coal.

The Minister referred to further aid from the European Community. How much is actually on offer? Is it within the £5 million to which he referred? Will the review examine the possibility of an application to the EEC for further aid, as the subject is also a matter of interest to Community countries?

The Community offer is considerably in excess of the £5 million. It amounts to approximately 40 per cent. of the planned project cost. I shall send the right hon. Gentleman full details. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, might first want to hear the Coal Board's views on the review.

Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom project is totally uneconomic? Is he also aware that the amount of fuel oil which we anticipated would be produced in the United Kingdom has drastically slumped and that there is, therefore, not the demand for this type of oil?

With respect to my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge of this subject, I suggest that none of us should allow ourselves to be too shortsighted. We are talking about the very long term. I am addressing myself to the technological questions and the nature of the technology. That seems an area that requires further review.

Does the Minister realise that liquefaction has proved successful in other countries, notably South Africa, and that the long-term future of the coal industry is tied up with liquefaction? Knowing the Government's attitudes towards nuclear development, we are asking for guarantees of schemes that will keep the coal industry viable well into the next century.

I am sure that none of us would want to associate ourselves with the wage costs associated with the example that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am sure, too, that none of us would deny that the technology in South Africa is chalk and cheese in relation to the kind of technology involved in future, long term, high technology liquefaction projects. We are talking about a review. It is necessary, at this time, to examine this project.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has yet completed his review of standing charges on gas and electricity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is now in a position to announce the result of the review into the effect of standing charges on consumers with small incomes.

The review is progressing well and is nearly complete. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

I appreciate that some poorer people could find themselves at a disadvantage if the standing charge were abolished and the lost revenue recouped by raising the unit cost of energy. However, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people of limited means could benefit from such a proposal, which would also encourage energy conservation? Will he bear this in mind when he comes to draw conclusions from the review?

It is precisely that point—the balance of advantage—that is at the heart of the review, just as it was when this matter was last reviewed in 1976. One reason why it has taken some time to complete is that the numbers involved require sophisticated analysis. It is at the heart of what we are doing.

Is the Minister aware that many people with small, limited incomes face the most tremendous difficulties and hardship in paying fuel bills, especially during the winter months? Is he aware that the removal of the standing charges would at least give some help to those whom I have described?

We are well aware of the difficulties caused to poorer people by fuel bills. That is why this winter we shall be spending over £300 million, the largest sum ever, on assistance to those people.

indicated dissent—

The hon. Gentleman should know before he shakes his head that the difficulty about standing charges is that not all poor consumers are small consumers. A number of larger consumers of energy are also poor consumers who would not be assisted by a move from a standing charge to a higher unit charge.

Does my hon. Friend agree that charges for renting television sets and telephones are the equivalent of standing charges? Has not the Child Poverty Action Group stated that large poorer families that use large amounts of electricity would be adversely and disproportionately affected by the abolition of standing charges and their transfer to the unit cost of electricity?

I have reason to believe that my hon. Friend is correct. If only the argument were as simple as saying that the poor consumer is a small consumer, it would be a good deal easier to resolve the problem.

The Opposition understand that there is no simple answer. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in coming to his conclusions, that the problem confronting old-age pensioners, according to what I am told in my constituency, is that they conserve energy because they cannot afford it, only to find that the standing charge amounts to more than the cost of the electricity that they have used?

There is undoubtedly a category for whom that is true. They tend to be those who feel aggrieved and turn up at the right hon. Gentleman's advice centre, just as they do at mine. The right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that one figure that has already emerged from the survey is that the number of old-age pensioners for whom the standing charge is larger than the unit charge is no higher than 15 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the current prices charged for North Sea oil.

BNOC's current price for Forties crude is $33·50 a barrel. The prices for other grades traded by BNOC vary around that price according to quality.

As this price will affect the potential value of Britoil, when does the Secretary of State intend that this particularly obnoxious privatisation is to be brought forward? Does he intend to ensure that the House has ample opportunity to debate the prospectus before it goes to the market?

That was a rather tortuous way into the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He is well aware that the price of North Sea oil is determined by the response to market forces and has nothing to do with the forthcoming flotation of Britoil, which, I hope, will occur before the end of this year. It is open to the Opposition to make use of a Supply day if they wish to debate this question further. I would think that the House in general and the hon. Gentleman in particular have had ample time to debate these important matters during the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which I am glad to say is due to receive Royal Assent today.

Will the Secretary of State examine the circumstances in which the price of petrol has increased under this Government from less than 70p a gallon to i1·70? Is he aware that North Sea oil forms only one part of the question? Will he review the whole issue of petrol price increases that have taken place under this Government?

There is a later question on the subject.

Have not the Government contributed to that increase through taxation measures in the Budget?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) muttered, improperly, but quite accurately, from a sedentary position, there is a subsequent question on the Order Paper dealing with this matter. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the price of petrol in real terms is lower today than it was in 1975.

Did not the Secretary of State agree that, at some stage in our proceedings and before the market flotation, we should debate the prospectus and the heads of agreement of the participation agreement between BNOC and Britoil? Will he confirm that he intends to advise the Leader of the House that such a procedure would be desirable if he intends to act before the end of the year?

The heads of agreement of the participation agreement between Britoil and BNOC will be placed in the Library and will therefore be available to all hon. Members. Similarly, the prospectus will be published at the normal time before the flotation and will be available to all hon. Members. The debates that take place on the Floor of the House are partly a matter for the Opposition, who may wish to choose this subject for a Supply day debate. I should be happy to participate in such a debate. Ultimately, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to invite cash tender bids for North Sea blocks in the eighth licensing round.

I expect to issue the formal invitation to apply for all eighth round blocks, including those to be offered for cash tender bids, in September.

I welcome that news. However, will the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which we assume will have passed into law by then, mean that those who are bidding will be in a better position to bid for gas contracts and will therefore be able to bring gas ashore with a greater prospect of profits than they were able to expect in the past?

My hon. Friend is right. The Bill will receive the Royal Assent and become an Act before questions are finished today. As for the eighth round, my hon. Friend is also right. That is why between 30 and 40 blocks in the mature southern gas basin will be on offer in the eighth round.

Will not these choice blocks go to the highest bidders, who will be the large multinationals? Will not the scheme therefore discriminate against smaller independent private British companies, over which the right hon. Gentleman cried so many crocodile tears in the seventh round?

May I correct a statement that 1 made a little earlier, Mr. Speaker? I am informed that the Royal Assent to the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill was signified a few minutes ago in the other place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]

Order. The Bill has not been signified here yet.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those happy occasions, of which there are many, on which both you and I are correct.

The House knows my declarable interest in this subject. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is correct. in that the tender system may be attractive to the Treasury and the larger oil companies, but it is a major disincentive and disadvantage to the smaller British companies, which the Conservative Party is seeking to support?

I respect the views of my hon. Friend, who is a member of the board of a small British oil company and has a great deal of knowledge in this matter. Nevertheless, it is the Government's judgment that to offer 15 of the total of about 85 blocks for auction is the right balance, bearing in mind the conflicting considerations on both sides.

What part will the national interest play in this regard? It cannot be in the national interest for multinationals to have the cream, but it appears from the right hon. Gentleman's answers that that will happen under the procedure that he is outlining.

We are talking of 15 blocks out of a total of about 85 on offer. There is no reason to suppose that foreign companies will outbid British companies for the 15. We shall have to wait to see who puts in the highest bid. Despite the hon. Gentleman's sneer at multinational oil companies, they have played a constructive role in the development of the North Sea oil industry, to the benefit of the whole nation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisifed with progress towards the development of a European Community energy policy.

Yes, Sir.

Has the Council of Ministers considered the possibility of introducing a common energy policy organised on the same lines as the common agricultural policy? Would not such a policy be of great advantage to this country?

Linking a common energy policy to the CAP does not make it the most attractive proposition. The Community energy policy sets a framework for national energy programmes. We believe that Community action should be taken when necessary to supplement national energy programmes, but they cannot be a substitute.

Will the Minister save the country from the disaster suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox)? In doing so will he remember that although there are many subjects on which there is a need for a common European policy, because of Britain's peculiar and strong energy position we are, in many respects, very differently placed from our European partners?

I agree that we are differently placed, but there are many subjects where common interest is rightly shown—for instance, in dealing with our partners with the problem of shortfall of oil supplies, or funding, on a Community basis, research into alternative energy systems, to which we all attach importance. I think that the hon. Gentleman basically agrees with me. We have our own interest, which we must pursue on a domestic basis, but there are problems where it is of the essence that we co-operate with our partners. That is going ahead successfully.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Community's role in supplementing national energy policies. Is there any Community contribution that would be useful to this country in support of the development of tidal energy, especially the Severn barrage?

It is too early to talk about any Community involvement in the Severn barrage project, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there is a good record in the Community of dealing with demonstration projects and researches into alternative energy systems. We are nearing agreement on a further 55 million European currency units to boost the demonstration project programme, and we are also looking to a third four-year research and development programme when the second programme ends next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will hold discussions with the oil companies over the fluctuating prices of petrol; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The price of petrol is determined by market conditions.

Is the Minister aware that during the past month petrol prices have increased by 20p, without comment from either the Minister or his Department? Does he realise that an increase of this sort means real hardship to some motorists, to small business men, and to garage proprietors working on a small profit margin? They have seen prices go up and down almost constantly during the past six months, and up 20p in the last month. Does the Minister realise that this pushes up prices in the shops and the cost of living? When will the Department and the Minister do something about it?

Nobody fails to understand the problems associated with price increases, but my Department was not asked to comment between November 1981 and March 1982 when pump prices declined by 21 per cent.

What hope does my hon. Friend hold out for those living in rural areas where small garages, suffering as a result of the increases in petrol prices, may go to the wall and thereby take away facilities from those who most need them?

My Departemnt has had considerable experience of trying to assist rural garages, but the rural-urban price disparities that exist are essentially a reflection of retail margins. To that extent, petrol is not dissimilar from other products.

Is the Minister aware that, when crude oil prices are falling, the vast majority of British people feel that they are being ripped off by petrol companies which increase prices at the petrol pumps so substantially? Is it not time that his Department intervened to protect the people from something that will increase inflation?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to help the British people to understand the truth, which is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we are paying less in real terms at the pumps than we were in April 1975. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that when crude oil prices in 1975 were at $12·50, the equivalent of $18·75 today, they are today at $33·50 a barrel. Difficult problems are always caused to all of us in facing the reality of prices in the market place.

Given the Secretary of State's belief in the infallibility of free market forces, as expressed in his Hutber lecture, will he explain why, with a decrease in demand, petrol prices go up?

This may be a perfect opportunity for me to draw the attention of the House as the right hon.

Ultimately.

The fluctuations that occur in the interim are associated with declines in prices, but I heard no complaints from the vociferous Labour Front Bench when prices declined.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the yield to British Gas and the Central Electricity Generating Board of receipts from standing charges in the last financial year.

According to the British Gas Corporation and area electricity boards in England and Wales, whose sole responsibility the level of standing charges is, the total revenue raised by standing charges in 1981–82 is estimated to be about £850 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he considering pensioners separately in the review of standing charges, which is not yet complete, particularly in cases of proven hardship?

The question of pensioners has exercised us a great deal. More than 1 million pensioners are in receipt of the supplements that have been paid during the lifetime of this Government. We are concerned about pensioners, but my hon. Friend should understand, first, that not all pensioners are poor and, secondly, that not all poor pensioners are small consumers. Therefore, adjusting the standing charges might not help in that respect. The cost of removing the standing charges for all pensioners would be about £300 million which is an enormous amount for anyone to contemplate.

Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of the social arguments, it is in the nature of the economics of electricity supply, where demands must be met instantly, that electricity cannot be sold like little apples, and that, if the standing charges are removed, the revenue must be made up from some other source?

I am grateful, as I often am on matters relating to electricity, to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) for what he said. It is necessary for that view to be put forward to counterbalance other views that are equally sincerely held. Successive investigations of the standing charges theory have shown that there is a justified division between the standing charge and the unit charge. As neither of the industries makes a profit on domestic sales, if the standing charges were abolished the unit charges would have to be increased correspondingly.

Is my hon. Friend confident that he has taken fully into account the proportion represented by the standing charge of a pensioner's quarterly bill? Does he agree that that relationship has changed over time? We want it pulled back, and the evidence supports a pulling back of that proportion.

In the past, the standing charge, although justified theoretically to be a certain proportion of the industry's costs, was artificially held down. The industries, of their own motion, decided during the past two to three years to bring the standing charge up to a level that more appropriately reflected the costs involved. We recognise that, but not one area electricity board has a standing charge which truly reflects the underlying costs. Indeed, one board has a standing charge which is 29 per cent. below the underlying costs that should theoretically be attributed to the standing charge.

Is the Minister aware that there is much anger and concern about standing charges and that electricity boards are becoming more and more out of line every day? Does he realise that the Southern Electricity Board, which serves my area, has just increased the standing charges for credit meters by 16·5 per cent. for pre-payment meters by 17·5 per cent., and for current by only 9·5 per cent? Will he instruct area board chairmen to bring standing charges into line? I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in answer to the previous question.

Whether or not the hon. Gentle man accepts what I said, the law is the law. We do not have the power—neither did the Labour Government—to make such directions. That is why every answer that we give to questions makes it clear that the matter is exclusively one for the area boards concerned. I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that people are concerned about the overall cost of electricity. In the dreadful decade 1970 to 1980, the cost of electricity went up by over 500 per cent. I am happy to say that his year's tariff increases overall have been at about 10 per cent. That is the lowest increase for some years. The way to make people happy is to ensure that electricity prices do not increase out of all proportion to the overall rise in the RPI.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what longer-term assumptions on oil and gas reserves in United Kingdom territory are used in deciding shorter-term policies on depletion.

I have taken careful note of the conclusion by the Select Committee on Energy that the Government's involvement in depletion policy should for the present be limited largely to monitoring the rate of production. The latest estimates of reserves are given in my Department's "Brown Book" for 1982.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the oil and gas industry takes large investment decisions on long-term investment criteria? His initial response to the Select Committee's report will no doubt be useful in updating the Varley assurances, but when does he expect to make a further response to the Select Committee report, and does he then envisage that he will be in a position to give longer-term assurances on depletion policy?

I hope to be in a position to give my full comments to the Select Committee report on depletion policy within the time scale that has been recommended for such replies. On the Varley assurances, as my hon. Friend will be aware, I have announced that there will be no production cuts before 1985 at the earliest.

We, too, question a number of aspects of the Select Committee's report, particularly on depletion. Will the Secretary of State confirm his confidence in his Brown Book's reserve assessments, particularly on gas? Does he agree that we should not embark on a large-scale rapid depletion of our gas reserves in the North Sea, particularly by exporting them to Europe?

The forecasts in the Brown Book are the best that we can make on the knowledge that is available, but, of course, they depend heavily on the incomplete extent of that knowledge. It is my hope and intention that as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, and also as a result of the eighth round of oil and gas licensing, which includes a large number of gas blocks, we shall know much more about the extent of our gas reserves and be in a position to make fuller and better decisions than is possible now.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's policy to secure net self-sufficiency for the rest of this century, and will he therefore look with concern at the slow-down in the development of an annex B application which would render us net self-sufficient in the middle 1990s?

It is, of course, desirable to maximise the exploitation of the oil and gas resources of the North Sea. It is impossible to say how long we shall remain self-sufficient. It is also important to make new discoveries to fill in the period beyond the present decade. The right hon. Gentleman should not be too pessimistic about the prospect of an annex B application coming forward in the reasonably near future.

In making these difficult estimates about the future, what allowance does my right hon. Friend's Department make for the prospect of significant improvements in enhanced recovery techniques?

The technological development in this industry is of prime importance in trying to assess how much is there and how much is ultimately recoverable. The Brown Book contains no over-optimistic assessment of the developments of technology, but I believe that such developments are likely to continue in the future, as they have in the past.

Is the Minister aware that only seven countries produced more oil than Britain in 1981 and that at least 20 countries have substantially greater oil reserves than we have? As we tend to produce more or to accelerate our production when the price is falling, is it not clear that our oil depletion policy is being managed with maximum shortsightedness?

Certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman would care to make a case for curtailing our production now and expanding it later and show that that would be in our interest economically, I should be interested to hear it. Certainly no such case has been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will commission and fund a completely independent assessment of electricity generating costs and forecasts.

I am sure that these matters will continue to receive wide scrutiny.

Yes. However, we should like a wide scrutiny on an independent basis. That is why I ask for an "independent assessment".

The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Energy and I know that he has gone into the matter deeply. However, there is a slight confusion implicit in his question. The figures that have been regularly published by the CEGB are historic costs, and, as such, they are accurate. However, historic costs do not provide a good guide to future investment decisions. The CEGB has made that abundantly clear not only in its successive annual reports, but in its statement of case relating to its application to build a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, which said that cost analysis for future plant must be based on the net effective cost, not on historic cost figures. They are true as far as they go, but they are not the basis on which future decisions are made.

In reviewing the costs of the electricity supply industry, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no political interference in the choice of raw materials used by the electricity supply industry?

Yes. I hope that there will be no improper political interference in that matter.

We welcome the breadth of the Sizewell inquiry. In our view, it covers all the questions that need to be asked. However, in the light of that answer and the electricity consumer report that was published today, would it not be more sensible to provide money for an independent analysis of historic costs, and so on? If that is not done, there will be a cry that it was not a proper inquiry into the basic question of atomic energy costing.

I hope and believe that there will be no such grounds for complaint at the end of the day and that no responsible person, such as the right hon. Gentleman, will be moved to make such a complaint.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his forecast of North Sea gas supplies.

I expect future supplies of gas to be larger than they otherwise would be, given the market freedom introduced as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill. At the moment, however, the United Kingdom is a major gas importer. Last year, imports totalled 25 per cent. of our supplies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in developing our North Sea gas reserves, attention should continue to be paid to preserving our industrial capability for producing items such as pipe flanges or fittings? Therefore, will he repeat the assurance that the Offshore Supplies Office will continue to look carefully at this matter and that, in its judgment, it will not be led astray by the cartel for British Steel prices which has resulted in some British manufacturers having to pay more for their raw material than their competitors?

I know that my hon. Friend assiduously pursues British companies' interests in this matter with both my Department and the Department of Industry. Those who know the excellent activities of the Offshore Supplies Office will know that full and fair opportunity to compete will be given to British companies. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and will come back to him on that.

Does the Under-Secretary admit that part of the estimate must be based on our being successful in bidding for Norwegian gas and prohibiting the export of United Kingdom gas?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is correct. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made it clear in his February statement that we must wait and see what major increase there will be in potential reserves prior to a long-term decision on the export of gas. For the moment, it has been made clear that no further export is expected.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the progress being made on energy conservation by British industry.

There has been some encouraging progress in response to our policies of economic pricing of energy backed up by a strong information programme. I shall be publishing very soon the report by Armitage Norton Consultants on the impediments to energy conservation investment to stimulate a wide discussion on how the remaining potential for cost-effective energy conservation investment in industry might best be realised.

I thank the Minister for that reply. From the report, I understand that foreign-owned firms have a better record than British-owned firms on energy conservation. What are the Minister's proposals for encouraging British firms to save more energy?

The report showed that, of the companies sampled, foreign-owned firms had a better record than British firms. The report did not say that the British firms were entirely laggard. Indeed, many British firms have a good record. However, the important point to emerge from the report is that the great barrier to energy conservation in industry is attitudes, not an absence of funds. The publicity policies propagated by my Department must address themselves to that.

What progress is being made on implementing a scheme for labelling domestic appliances, given that that could make a major contribution to energy conservation?

The Department is considering that matter, and I think that my hon. Friend will hear more about it in the reasonably near future.

Is the Minister aware that, during the past three years, the Tory Government have conserved energy in a way that has resulted in putting 4 million people on the scrap heap? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are now more than 40 million tonnes of coal on the pit tops and that that is mainly the result of 20,000 bankruptcies? Many people have been laid off and, as a result, the energy that should be used to reduce the employment queue is not being used.

I was about to welcome the hon. Gentleman as someone who, belatedly, has become interested in industrial energy conservation. However, it would be inappropriate to stray into the area into which the hon. Gentleman has invited me.

Given the answers that I have received to my written questions, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep the progress that he has made on energy conservation a secret. Incidentally, he promised that he would look into that matter. Rayner is to examine the whole question of energy conservation. Will he be motivated by a Government who want to spend more or less on energy conservation? Given Rayner's past performance, less will be spent.

Rayner is to scrutinise the way in which conservation is carried forward and its efficiency.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if there has been any recent change in the relative priority his Department gives to the development of new energy sources in comparison with the development of existing sources.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the percentage change between 1981–82 and 1982–83 in public expenditure on research and development into renewable energy resources.

There has been no such change. The total expenditure by my Department on renewable energy sources, including the research and development management services of the energy technology support unit at Harwell, but excluding tidal studies, will fall in 1982–83 by about 11 per cent. from the 1981–82 figure of around £16·3 million.

Does not the cut in research and development signify a change in the order of priorities? Are not the Japanese already thinking of putting British research in this area to commercial use? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite his earlier remarks about EC involvement in the Severn barrage, there is a feeling that he has boxed himself into nuclear and conventional options although he should be investing in alternative energy sources?

When the hon. Gentleman was advising the Prime Minister three years ago, the amount spent on renewable energy was about one-fifth of what it will be in the coming year. I do not know what interest the hon. Gentleman took in it at that stage, but it is somewhat difficult to accept his criticism today. We have a rolling programme of research into the renewables to arrive at the most promising renewables for use in Britain. The ACORD report, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman refers, is a further step down that road.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider extending time for Questions to the Prime Minister.

I have no such proposals to make to the House.

In view of the many questions to the Prime Minister on the Order Paper, only the first four questioners are likely to have an opportunity to put their supplementary questions. As there is an obvious wish to question the Prime Minister on a whole host of topics, is there not a case for extending the time allocated by, perhaps, five minutes?

The situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers derives from the great preference for the open question. If the time were extended by five minutes, that would not greatly alter the present characteristics of Question Time.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to stand firm on any extension of Prime Minister's Question Time? It has been harmed by live broadcasting. In spite of the Prime Minister's marvellous answers to all questions, it is not typical of a day's work in the House. There is far more noise during Question Time than at other times.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will raise in the Services Committee the practice of using Roman, rather than Arabic, numerals in paginating parts of House of Commons papers, especially in Select Committee reports, with a view to standardising on Arabic numerals.

I am sure that the House of Commons (Services) Committee will be prepared to consider any proposal the hon. Member puts to it on the subject.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that answer. This is hardly the most burning political issue that is likely to come before the House during this Parliament, but is he aware that it represents a source of confusion to hon. Members, the public and the press? It is often not possible to find a particular page in many Select Committee reports. Will he support the proposal in my question?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about some of the difficulties that derive from the present forms of pagination. While I should like to secure a role as a great reforming Leader of the House, perhaps by obtaining changes in this regard, I should not like to anticipate what might be the conclusions of the House of Commons (Services) Committee when it considers the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no disposition to abandon Roman numerals? They are part of the inheritance of European civilisation.

That is the sort of weighty issue that should be considered by the Services Committee and, mercifully, not by me alone.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has given consideration recently to the Casson report on providing extra accommodation for hon. Members, and the proposed redevelopment of the Bridge Street site.

The House of Commons (Services) Committee recently invited the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to look into the possibility of securing the assistance of private funds in the implementation of Sir Hugh Casson's plans.

Would it not be rather degrading for the House of Commons to depend on private funds for the accommodation that a modern democratic legislature requires? Will the right hon. Gentleman again look at the matter with a view to making proper provision for the British Parliament from the funds provided by the taxpayer for it to do its job?

The most prudent course would be to await the report of the Sub-Committee that is considering the problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if this proliferation of Committees continues, hon. Members will not need any offices?

I note that point, although I am not quite sure what conclusion my hon. Friend wishes me to draw.

Does the Leader of the House realise that if we got rid of the other place our accommodation problems would be solved at a stroke?

That is an interesting point of view, but it would be inappropriate to engage in debate on that matter from the Dispatch Box.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there could be a considerable advantage in using private investment for such accommodation and that it could be done under a lease—back system? Is he aware that if the choice is between public funds never being made available to provide decent office accommodation and making office accommodation possible through private funds, we would find the latter preferable?

Those factors are being considered by the Sub-Committee of the Services Committee.

asked the Lord President of the Council what criteria affect the number of staff in his Department who deal with Government publicity.

The number of staff in my Department, as in any other, is determined by the volume of business.

In the light of that Delphic answer, may I ask whether the Falkland Islands issue led my right hon. Friend to increase his staff? Does his Department have any links with the Ministry of Defence when dealing with national publicity? Given the way in which returning newsmen have criticised the Ministry of Defence's role in dealing with what was, in effect, the Government's and the nation's publicity, does my right hon. Friend consider it worth while, in the television era, to review the steps that should be taken to handle publicity in these circumstances or in the unhappy event of another Falklands-type issue? In that way, we could try to cope with criticisms about censorship and see whether they are justified.

My Department's role in that respect is to co-ordinate the information services of other Government Departments. In that context, we were, of course, in touch with the Ministry of Defence. Although we could clearly hold a productive inquest into how our performance in the South Atlantic was portrayed to the public at home and overseas, I should have thought that it was a remarkable tribute to the way in which information services had been carried out that public opinion was consolidated in such a preponderant majority in favour of the enterprise.

Is it true that a broadcast was made to Argentina in Spanish from the Government's radio station on Ascension Island at the same time as British correspondents and the British media were being forbidden to broadcast it in Britain?

I was not aware of that fact, but I shall inquire into the matter and let the hon. Gentleman have further information.

asked the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have office accommodation in single rooms.

The number of Members who have office accommodation in single rooms is 247.

Does that not betray a very unsatisfactory situation? If the House were subject to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, might not the Leader of the House and Mr. Speaker be liable for prosecution in the courts? Will he urgently review arrangements for office accommodation, bring forward the Casson report, and not allow private enterprise to be a drag on its implementation.

The number of single rooms available in the House has increased from 89 in 1971 to 247 in 1982.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Middle Ages the ecclesiastical tradition in the House was Benedictine rather than Carthusian and that it would be greatly deplored if we all lived as single monks in our own cells?

As someone who had many happy parliamentary years at a desk in Cloister Court, I say "Amen" to that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while hon. Members' accommodation is unsatisfactory, the accommodation for their staff is atrocious? Will he adopt a more constructive and positive attitude towards that problem than he appears to be taking?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but it must be clearly understood that the improvements that he has in mind would cost a considerable amount. It is by no means clear that the entire Chamber agrees with him about the importance of hon. Members, their research assistants and secretaries having individual rooms.

How are those 247 golden people chosen? Are they chosen on the basis of Buggins' turn or from among those who have been particularly good in obeying their Whips, whether in Government or in Opposition?

They are chosen by the Whips. I leave the process by which they are chosen to my hon. Friend's imagination.