asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will enter into discussions with the chairmen of British Gas and Electricity Council with the object of persuading them to reduce standing charges to domestic consumers and to obtain more of their income from units actually consumed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to present new proposals on standing charges made by the gas and electricity industries; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest position regarding the review of fuel standing charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what inquiries he is currently making into the level of standing charges for gas and electricity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his proposals for standing charges.

I have asked the industries to consider limiting standing charges to a maximum of 50 per cent. of any total bill. In addition, independent consultants are examining the level and composition of standing charges and are due to report by Christmas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is encouraging news? Does he appreciate that the present level of standing charges is regarded by many small consumers as excessive, and that this is especially true of old-age pensioners? Does he agree that in the interests of distributive justice the balance between the standing charge and charges should be readjusted?

I recognise the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing, but I think that readjustment should not occur until the studies to which I have referred have been completed and evaluated. The 50–50 proposal. which I very much hope the industries will accept, would help about 1 million gas consumers and up to 750,000 electricity consumers, about half a million of whom would be pensioners.

rose—

Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered and then to call other hon. Members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his 50–50 proposal will be widely welcomed, especially by pensioners who feel cheated by the present arrangements? Does his reference to "independent consultants" mean that his mind is still open to the possibility at some stage of recommending the abolition of standing charges?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that he is right to talk about the response to the proposal. The many letters that my Department has received on this issue have been 4 to 1 in favour of the proposal. I think that standing charges are right in principle. There are certain costs that are independent of the amount of fuel that has been consumed. That was the view of the Labour Government, who published a booklet entitled "Energy Tariffs and the Poor" with a foreword by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The document starkly reaffirmed the principle of standing charges. However, we must satisfy ourselves, first, that the components are right and, secondly, that the industries are not better at passing on these charges than cutting them.

Is the Minister aware that many pensioners are angry at being charged about seven or eight times in standing charges what they are being charged for the consumption of fuel, and that they will note that this has produced at least some results? Does he accept that in winter months, when pensioners and others find it so difficult to pay their fuel bills, they will still be faced with the problem of standing charges unless some arrangements can be make to relieve those on the most limited incomes of these charges?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the help that is being given to the needy to meet fuel costs— help that is being given on a substantial and unprecedented scale. In general I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for my proposal.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since tabling my question I have received a gas bill which shows, apparently, that I have consumed no gas? The only thing for which I have to pay is the standing charge. Therefore, I feel perhaps more strongly about this issue than I did hitherto. Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is much support for the study that he has announced?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whom I have always considered in every context to be a most deserving case.

May I welcome warmly the tremendous step forward that my right hon. Friend's answer represents? What is the estimated cost of it and is there any chance of moving to the complete elimation of standing charges for old-age pensioners in the long term? Even if the 50 per cent. proposal is accepted, many of them will still face hardship and difficulty.

To do that which my hon. Friend has suggested would mean a substantial increase in the cost of electricity for families. This would be hard on large families whose incomes are not very high. I should not be agreeable to taking that course. The cost is likely to be about a quarter of 1 per cent. of total revenue for the gas industry and as little as one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of total revenue for the electricity industry.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the status of the announcement? Is it a proposal by the right hon. Gentleman that has been accepted by the two industries? When will it come into force? When will people feel the effect of the decision?

There are two proposals, both of which I announced early last month during the Conservative Party conference at Brighton. I issued a press statement. The House was not sitting, so I could not make the announcement to the House. The independent inquiries have been agreed by the industries and are taking place now. I expect to hear the results at Christmas. The 50-50 proposal is a request that I have made to the industries. They are considering that request. I am sure that they will be assisted by the support that the request has had from both sides of the House.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that his 50-50 proposal will mean that in parts of the country such as mine, where people who can afford to do so own second homes, such people will make no contribution to the costs of the gas and electricity boards throughout nine months of the year? Is he aware that many people in my area would regard it as an appalling scandal that the people to receive most help are those who can afford to own second homes there?

Any such proposal would affect a number of different people in different circumstances. Any proposal that is geared to need has to come from the Department of Health and Social Security. That is not a matter for my Department. However, it is clear from the response that the proposal will affect many needy people who feel a grievance at the way in which the present system of standing charges operates.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative, but may I counsel him to be careful about the 50-50 proposal? It implies that people can reduce the amount of electricity and gas that they use to reach the 50-50 level and might therefore in the coming months risk hypothermia? Will my right hon. Friend respond to my proposal that if the standing charges were abolished income from them could be replaced by a 10 per cent. increase in the unit charge? That would eliminate standing charges, which weigh so heavily on the poorer members of the community?

The abolition of standing charges would require an increase of about 15 per cent., not 10 per cent., in unit electricity and gas costs. That would be a considerable burden for large, poor families. Therefore, that is not the route that we should take. In addition, there is no economic foundation for it. However, I have listened to my hon. Friend with careful attention.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we are pleased at his touching concern for gas and electricity consumers? However, will he go further and confirm that next year he will not impose a 10 per cent. gas levy?

I have already said that there will be no further massive increases in gas prices. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the increases of 10 per cent. in real terms over a three-year programme were announced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), at the beginning of 1980. That applied for 1980, 1981 and 1982. It does not apply for subsequent years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the recent announcement that the general level of electricity prices for next year will remain at this year's level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a misunderstanding about standing charges? Does he agree that to provide a service inside an individual home at the touch of a switch, tap or button does not come free? For instance, for water it would be much cheaper to have a standing pipe in the street than a tap in the kitchen. How much of the amount charged to consumers goes in to providing those services in individual homes?

I cannot answer that without notice. The cost varies from area to area, and between the gas industry and electricity industry. If my hon. Friend were to table a detailed question, I should be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.

Will the Secretary of State ask the London electricity board to return to the practice that applied until August this year, when it discounted standing charges for elderly people for whom the cost of the energy that they consumed was less than the standing charge? I asked the chairman of the LEB to consider that. Having heard about the 50-50 proposal, I am worried that it may not wish to return to the practice that it should have continued until the investigation had taken place.

As the hon. Gentleman implies, that matter is entirely for the LEB. The level of standing charges is a matter for the boards, not for me. All that I can do, as I have done, is to make a request to them and to urge them to take it seriously. They are alienating customers in a way that I would imagine no private sector firm would dream of doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the statutory powers and obligations of the gas and electricity boards to levy standing charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the question of the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity; and if he will make a statement.

Relevant powers and obligations are contained in section 37 of the Electricity Act 1947, section 14 of the Electricity Act 1957 and section 25 of the Gas Act 1972. Those powers and obligations are conferred directly on the industries, not on the Government. Within this framework it is a matter for the industries whether or not their tariff arrangements include a standing charge. I have received a number of representations on this subject.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no economic justification for the fuel boards receiving a large part of their revenue from standing charges, but that the reverse should happen, as marginal costs should rise to encourage conservation? Will he suggest to the fuel boards, as it is within their power, that they should eliminate standing charges over four years, starting by eliminating the standing charge for the heavy winter months when consumers are faced with the highest bills?

The evidence does not substantiate my hon. Friend's contention. 1 recognise that standing charges are regarded as an imposition, but it is possible to see a distinction between charges that relate to maintaining the supply and charges that relate to the unit charge. All that will become clear as a result of the independent study that is currently being conducted by the City of London auditors, which I shall await with the same interest as my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that old people have died from hypothermia because they could not pay heating charges? Is he aware that over the past three years, since November 1979, gas standing charges have increased by 55 per cent. and electricity charges by 85 per cent.? If the Minister will not abolish standing charges, will he consider making representations to the industries that old-age pensioners should be exempt from those additional costs?

The hon. Gentleman will know that until we hear the outcome of the studies for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked, there will be no increase in the standing charges. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for elderly people, which I share. That is why the code of practice on disconnections was revised under my chairmanship earlier this year. It provides that no old-age pensioner household can be cut off during the winter months. It also provides for a significant number of budget plans. I urge any old person who is concerned about his bills to contact the industries, which recognise that they are under an obligation to find the right payment methods to help. Government assistance to the elderly and underprivileged of £300 million this winter for fuel bills is the largest sum that has ever been expended on that necessary task.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the independent inquiry. Is he aware that between them the electricity and gas boards last year spent over £40 million on advertising? Is that level acceptable, as the advertising charges are passed on to consumers? Will he investigate the matter urgently?

My hon. Friend raises a matter that worries a number of people. It lies within the day-to-day management responsibility of the industries. He is not alone in feeling worried, and I am grateful that he has mentioned it as he has.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the right to levy standing charges pre-dates nationalisation, and in the electricity supply industry goes back to 1882?

The hon. Gentleman may well have read, as I have, the recently published history of the electricity supply industry, which he has served with distinction for a number of years. He is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words. While we want to do something to remove the problems, as they are seen to be, of the standing charges, we must recognise that they have existed for a long time. When the previous Government looked into the matter they reached the conclusion that it was hard to juggle with the tariffs without causing damage to a number of equally deserving people who may be poor but who are also substantial consumers.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy in what circumstances his approval is required for pit closure proposals by the National Coal Board.

The National Coal Board does not require the consent of the Secretary of State for pit closures, which are, of course, a management matter for the board.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in all probability his Department was well aware of the list of 75 intended pit closures? If he received such information, why was it not disclosed before the miners' ballot? Is he aware that hon. Members whose constituencies contain collieries which are on the list are anxious to know what the National Coal Board will do?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have listened carefully, as I did, to the words of the chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. Siddall. He made it clear that there is no list of pits earmarked for closure. All hon. Members interested in the future of the coal industry will welcome the result of the ballot.

If my hon. Friend lost three consecutive votes in the House, I know that he would resign. Why does Arthur Scargill not do the decent thing and resign and leave the representation of the workers in the coal industry to those who care about coal and not personal politics?

We are not involved in the detailed management of the National Union of Mineworkers, for which we have no responsibility. I hope that all who are committed to coal and are interested in its future will welcome the result of the ballot, for the sake of the miners, the industry, and the industry's customers, let alone for Great Britain.

Does the Minister agree that, amid a great controversy, it would help if the Government were to say that they regard the men who work in the mining industry as one of the nation's greatest assets and that they are opposed to a policy of pit closures and hit lists?

One has to reiterate facts again and again. There has been no change in the pattern of closures in this extractive industry for the period since "Plan for Coal" by this Government and the previous Government. Since "Plan for Coal" was published, 59 pits have been closed. Those committed to the industry should realise that since May 1979 1,300 faces have been closed as against 1,230 faces having been opened. Those of us who are committed to the industry are interested in the number of faces and face productivity.

How many compulsory redundancies have there been in the coal industry as a result of pit closures since "Plan for Coal" was published?

Details of the management and men and their relationships are a matter for the National Coal Board. The Government have improved substantially the arrangements for those who have accepted voluntary redundancy, which has, happily, been the pattern of successful development in the industry. The arrangements have been welcomed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many tons of coal have been imported during each of the past three years; what is the estimated amount for the current year; and how these figures compare with exports of coal.

Imports for 1979, 1980 and 1981 were respectively 4·4 million, 7·3 million and 4·3 million tonnes. Exports for those years were 2·3 million, 4 million and about 9 million tonnes. Imports for 1982 are likely to equal those for 1981 while exports are expected to be 8 million tonnes. We have therefore moved from being a net importer of 2 million tonnes in 1979 to being a net exporter of some 3 million-4 million tonnes this year.

The industry welcomes increased exports of coal, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that with stocks of about 50 million tonnes and a dark cloud of pit closures, which would have an effect on production, appearing to hang over the industry, it is economic madness to allow the import of 4 million tonnes of coal? We should make sure that little coal comes into the country while we have such supplies.

That is difficult when we are a net exporter. I wonder how many other British industries would welcome being in such a position. The hon. Gentleman knows well that 80 per cent. of the relatively minor amount of coal imported is of special coking coals, anthracite to maintain and develop our coal customers and coal to help the long-term pattern of demand of the coal industry. Only 20 per cent. of those imports are of steam coal and they come into Thames-side ports. We are talking about factors that help rather than hinder our long-term coal industry.

Would coal exports not be increased substantially if the coal industry were more competitive and if instead of subsidising uneconomic pits with huge sums of public money we used those funds for new investment to reduce coal prices and make coal competitive in export markets?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All of us interested in wanting to see the coal industry expand its export and domestic markets wish to have security of supply and competitive prices. The key to the industry's future success is the control of its costs.

I recognise that we shall not remain net exporters of coal unless we replace those pits that are being exhausted and closed down, as are so many in Leicestershire. Will the hon. Gentleman protest to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about his decision to ask the Leicestershire county council not to approve the opening of the first pit at Asfordby in the Vale of Belvoir?

Order. That is a question that should be tabled and appear in the Order Paper. In my judgment it is not a fair supplementary.

Without questioning your judgment, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect—

Order.

There are two points. First, since the "Plan for Coal" there has been a reduction of 8 million tonnes in capacity against an increase of 16 million tonnes. That is the sort of pattern of economic development that one would like to see. I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not allow himself to become anxious about the legitimate examination of the issue, which will not, I hope, change the pattern of development.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposed underwriting fees for the sale of Britoil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the progress of plans to encourage employees and small private shareholders to invest in Britoil.

I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to my statement of 10 November.

What reply does the Secretary of State give to the sober and responsible leader writer in The Sunday Times who referred to his action as particularly pigheaded?

The leader writer of that journal may well have been sober, but he was certainly not responsible nor was his judgment correct.

If the Britoil issue had not been underwritten, is it not a fact that the issue price would have had to be fixed at a lower level and the taxpayer would not have received the same price?

I think that that is probably correct.

Will the Secretary of State tell us about the terms in the Britoil prospectus referred to as "commercial reserves"? What is meant by "commercial reserves"?

The phrase "commercial reserves" means proven and probable reserves. The hon. Gentleman will be able to read about the matter to his heart's content in the full and voluminous prospectus.

When the Opposition spend most of their time complaining that shares might be sold abroad, is it not extraordinary that they now advocate that?

I entirely agree. The Opposition always try to have it both ways. As a result, it is impossible to make sense of anything they say.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, unlike the Amersham International prospectus, the Britoil prospectus does not tell us about the cost of fees? Should he not issue a real prospectus, instead of the false one that we have had in the press in the past few days, which tells the truth about future balance sheets, profits and dividends of his creature, Britoil? Is it not a fact that the balance sheet cannot be squared unless the new company disposes of considerable North Sea assets in the not too distant future?

That is a serious allegation. To issue a false prospectus is a criminal offence. The prospectus was issued after most careful consideration by the entire board, the responsible Ministers and the eminent lawyers who have advised us throughout. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his suggestion.

On no account will I withdraw any statement that I have made to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Britoil issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] May I put it to him, and let him challenge whether it is inaccurate, that the prospectus includes no reference to future balance sheets, forecasts or dividends?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I clearly heard the Opposition spokesman accuse my right hon. Friend of issuing a false document to the public.

If the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) does not mind, it will help the House if we wait until the end of Question Time to deal with the point of order. I wish to make progress.

I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) will withdraw the allegation. He is a parliamentarian and understands what is proper in the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I clearly heard the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) state that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had offered a false prospectus in relation to the Britoil issue. As that is a very serious charge against my right hon. Friend, as well as the auditors and board of Britoil and the agent for the issue, the latter three being unable to answer the challenge in the House, would it not be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegation or to repeat it outside, where I believe it would be of a slanderous and actionable nature?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I should like to have the opportunity to check Hansard, and I will act accordingly after that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of offshore supplies contracts are handled by British companies; and whether he has any proposals to increase that percentage.

The United Kingdom share of orders placed in the three years 1979 to 1981 has averaged 70 per cent. In all the circumstances, that is a substantial percentage.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on encouraging British industry to increase its percentage share, but could we not do better? Can he suggest areas where British industry could take an increased share of the trade?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. British industry could do better in one or two areas. We do not have as large a capability as we would like in pipe-laying barges or heavy lift equipment. There is tremendous potential for our companies overseas. I should like to see British companies pay particular attention to the Norwegian continental shelf.

In 1979 Britain secured at least 79 per cent. of offshore contracts. Therefore, does not the Minister's answer confirm that there has been a decline in Britain's share in each year since the Government took office? Will he publish details for each year? Will he also demonstrate greater urgency to show that the Government are not as disinterested as would appear from the record?

The hon. Gentleman is a past master at distorting facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If he reads carefully the year-by-year statistics in the Brown Book he will find that the average is about 70 per cent. I am on record as explaining to the House why the 1979 figure was higher than for most other years. The figure was distorted because in the last two weeks of the accounting period two major platform orders were placed. This Government are as dedicated as any to ensuring that British companies remain competitive and maintain a high share of orders from the United Kingdom continental shelf.

Although the Government are anxious to make a success of the offshore supplies industry, have we not been defective since 1979 in the two areas mentioned by the Minister? Is it not time that we made a greater effort in those areas?

Since leaving office the right hon. Gentleman has directed his entrepreneurial spirit in other directions. I am surprised that he has not detected the potential and involved himself in companies that might be able to pursue the matter.

Do not British firms bidding for contract supplies in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea face the same conditions as Norwegian firms bidding for contract supplies in British waters, which was not the case two or three years ago?

We must be careful when we accuse our Norwegian friends of being protectionist. Forty-six per cent. of all orders on the Norwegian continental shelf are won by foreign companies. It is regrettable that a larger percentage does not come to British companies. We are anxious to see that put right.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if it is intended to publish the results of studies being undertaken by his Department of the relative cost-effectiveness of investment in energy conservation and energy supply; and, if so, when publication may be expected.

My Department is preparing a paper on this topic, which will be published as soon as possible.

I welcome the Minister's statement. Is he aware that a good deal of material has been prepared by experts? Will he ensure that all elements and views are taken into account in the study?

The document will be as thoroughly prepared as other documents that emanate from my Department.

Are not the studies likely to show that investment in energy conservation is still a better economic bet than in energy supply, particularly in modern conditions? Should not that policy be pursued with great vigour as the real price of energy is not now rising so quickly?

Not necessarily. It is a complicated issue. My hon. Friend has to generalise to phrase his question. I urge the House not to be too critical of investment in supply. Last year more than £5 billion was spent on energy supply, much of it in the North Sea or in coal mines. I doubt whether many hon. Members on either side of the House would deplore that. Countless thousands of British jobs are secured by the investment.

Can the Minister say how many civil servants in the Department deal with supply and how many with demand?

Not without notice. The hon. Gentleman knows that to say that they are occupied on the supply side does not mean that they are dealing with the construction of power stations, for example. He also knows that only two new power stations have been ordered since the Government have been in office. They must deal with the complicated relationship between the Government and the nationalised industries. There is a disproportion as a result. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we have a highly effective energy conservation division that is showing results for its many labours.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he could raise the level of the publication above the normal standards of his Department by getting it to consider the cost-effectiveness and conservation impact of switching from standing charges to marginal price increases? Does he agree that that is the Government's normal approach to all these matters?

My hon. Friend is trying to have two bites at the cherry. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

Will Ministers be less touchy in the answers that they give? I am wondering whether an election is going on. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is serious and that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about it? The main thrust of the Government's energy conservation policy is exhortation—I do not quarrel with that—but is the Minister aware that more investment in energy conservation would be in the best interests of the whole nation? Will he give due weight to the important points that my hon. Friends have made?

My Department has a view on the matter, and I am trying to express it. We estimate that about £600 million—a large sum of money—was spent on domestic conservation measures last year. It is difficult to quantify, because it is bound up with the cost of replacing machines for industry and other costs. There is no shortage of investment in energy conservation promoted by my Department in either the industrial or domestic sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to respond to the Select Committee on Energy's report on energy conservation.

Before Christmas.

As it has again become respectable for Conservatives to talk about renewed capital investment in the public sector following the lead of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, will the Government urgently consider the Select Committee's report, especially the recommendation that we should increase the allocation of funds for insulating public buildings? Does my hon. Friend agree that would be highly cost-effective, would reduce public expenditure—because it reduces running costs—and would stimulate employment far more quickly than putting up many new buildings?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Select Committee's report raised several fundamental issues. That is why we are taking slightly longer than usual to consider a full response to it.

In the light of an earlier answer, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of jobs that can be provided through conservation and the introduction of combined heat and power? Is he further aware that that is why many hon. Members, including some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, believe that the Government should place more emphasis on conservation? Will they now do so?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman embraces CHP. He will know that the forthcoming Energy Bill promotes industrial CHP. I shall welcome him into the Lobby's to vote with us.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information is available to him as to the capacity of the oil industry to provide lead-free petrol.

The oil industry would have no difficulty in producing lead-free two-star petrol. It is engaged in a very large investment programme to enable the lead in four-star petrol to be reduced to 0·15 grams per litre.

Will the Minister encourage the industry to provide lead-free petrol for motorists who wish to use it? Does he agree that, as well as increasing consumer choice, which the Conservative Party is said to support, it will reduce health risks to children in inner cities?

It must not be forgotten that the Government's decision to reduce the lead content from 0..4 to 0·15 grams per litre by 1985 is the most major step that could have been taken in the short term. The industry is prepared to co-operate. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the forthcoming Royal Commission report on environmental pollution will be studied carefully. All points of view will be taken into account.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change to lead-free petrol, rather than a reduction in the lead content to which the Government are committed, would lead to a severe increase in the use of scarce fuels? Does he also agree that, because existing engines cannot run on lead-free petrol for a long time, we should need twice as many petrol pumps as we now have? As there is no proof that airborne lead is damaging to health, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's attitude is extremely responsible?

My hon. Friend is correct. It is worth pointing out that no more than about 10 per cent. of the 15 million petrol-driven vehicles now on our roads could use lead-free petrol, if it existed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the number of North Sea fields which he expects to be in production in 1984 and the anticipated aggregate flows of oil and gas.

It is expected that by the end of 1984, 25 oilfields and seven gas fields will be in production in the United Kingdom section of the North Sea. Projections of production for oil and gas in 1984 and beyond are necessarily subject to wide ranges of uncertainty. Projections of oil production in 1984 given in the 1982 Brown Book are 95 million to 125 million tonnes.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there not a danger that, unless we get a reasonable and sensible policy, we shall become net oil importers by the late 1980s? Does he concede—his right hon. and learned Friend alluded to this matter a few weeks ago—that we must sort out the tax regime? What proposals on that matter does he envisage in the forthcoming Finance Bill?

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that at this stage there is no way in which I or my right hon. and learned Friend could comment on his thinking on tax matters. However, it is true to say that probably no other industry has a closer dialogue with the Government than the oil industry. The various representations made both within the industry and the House are carefully noted.

Why, then, are the Government selling Britoil?

I appreciate that any estimate of oil and gas reserves must be rough, but have such estimates been revised upwards or downwards in the past three years in the light of new or no discoveries?

The Brown Book, which contains most of the North Sea activities and predictions, is revised on an annual basis.

Is it correct that we are rapidly moving to the production of 50 per cent. more oil than we need for domestic purposes? If so, is not that a dangerous depletion policy?

I do not think so. That reflects the success of exploration in the North Sea. The hon. Gentleman should always bear in mind that if we reversed this policy and restricted development in the North Sea that could have a serious effect on many jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's Wytch Farm interests.

British Gas is currently assessing a number of bids for its interest in PL.089. These bids are commercially confidential, and it would not be right for me to speculate on the outcome of the negotiations while they are still in progress.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will not compel the BGC to sell its Wytch Farm interests at anything like the offers made to date, which reflect the wholly ill-timed and ill-judged forced sale arrangement imposed by the Government on the BGC? I hope that the Government will not allow Wytch Farm to be given away in the same way as our other North Sea oil assets.

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I made it quite clear that it would be premature to comment while the BGC is considering the bids. The House discussed this matter and approved the Government's direction in July 1981.

Why have the Government compelled the BGC to dispose of these assets? Are they not highly profitable? Does it not help to keep down the price of gas if the BGC is encouraged to undertake these profitable activities?

The House has debated these matters twice. The Government's policy on the disposal by the BGC of areas not connected with its main gas business—onshore oil—was approved by the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the future of the British National Oil Corporation.

BNOC continues to have the very important job of trading participation oil. It is now free to concentrate on that task, and we have strengthened its board accordingly.

May we have an absolute assurance that there will be no suggestion at a later stage of any privatisation, however minor, of the assets of the BNOC, slender though they are? Is there not some genuine concern about the viability of the corporation as a trading organisation, given that it has only the right of trading?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear from the outset that the BNOC would continue its role as a trading arm and that it would be 100 per cent. Government-owned. There is no change in our view on that. As the largest oil trader in the North Sea, the BNOC will continue to provide challenging opportunities to its staff. It has made a small profit in the past, and we see no reason why it cannot continue to do so.

Is the Minister really being honest with the House? Is he suggesting that the BNOC will continue to make a profit on its slender trading base? What proposals, if any, do the Government have for subventing this operation?

The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, and he will be aware that there is provision to subsidise, if necessary. However, there is no reason to believe that that is likely to happen.

asked the Secretary of State what representations he has received concerning his decision to refuse financial support to organisations wishing to present to the public inquiry evidence against the establishment of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, Suffolk; and if he will now reconsider his decision.

I have received 12 letters on this matter since I wrote to the inquiry inspector on 21 September. My decision stands.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this inquiry is of great national as well as local importance because it may determine the pattern for energy and capital expenditure over the next 20 years? Does he agree that it is vital that the public should know that both sides of the argument have been effectively and properly put forward? Bearing in mind the funds available to the Central Electricity Generating Board, does he agree that some assistance should be given to organisations taking a contrary view so that the case may be fairly presented?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the inquiry, but I do not agree on the other points. As time is short, I merely refer him to the arguments that I set out at considerable length in my letter to Sir Frank Layfield explaining why I did not think it right to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. As I know that the right hon. Gentleman has great concern for the views of the trade unions, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have received a letter from the Employees' National Committee for the Electricity Supply Industry, the chairman and secretary of which are Mr. Frank Chapple and Mr. John Lyons, expressing strong opposition to any public funding for the objectors at the Sizewell inquiry.

asked the Lord President of the Council when was the most recent review by his office of the accommodation needs of the support staff of Back Benchers.

The accommodation and needs of Members and their staff are under constant review by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee.

Is the Lord President aware that the announcement of the £15 million plan to adapt the building across the road during the recess was extremely welcome? Does he agree that the staff of Back Benchers who are essential to the proper functioning of the work of Members of Parliament—

Not at all.

—who are essential to the proper functioning of the work of Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the interjection of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), should have civilised and reasonable conditions in which to work? Will he press on with schemes to improve and extend the required accommodation in the House?

No.

I did not hear the intervention of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I suspect that it was fairly pertinent. As to the more general issue, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Sub-Committee will assess the use to which the Bridge Street premises might be put, taking account of the needs of staff.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all hon. Members would wish their support staff to have good facilities but that most would prefer their research assistants and other support staff to have their facilities across the road, so that the mainstream facilities in this building are not overclogged, as they are now?

It would be detrimental if we were so overrun by assistants that we became strangers in our own land.

Who will confer in the proposed Government building in Storey's Gate? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea to use that building—on a temporary basis, of course—for the House of Lords while it remains in existence and for the House to take over the rest of this building?

The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary goes wider than the original question. That formula protects me from having to answer such a loaded question.

asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements he proposes to ensure prompt publication of the minutes of evidence of Select Committees.

I am not aware of any serious problems in the publication of minutes of evidence taken by Select Committees, but I shall gladly arrange for any matters the right hon. Member raises to be looked into.

Is the Leader of the House aware that minutes in evidence can take several weeks to prepare and produce for hon. Members to read and that such evidence may have a bearing on many debates that take place here? Does he agree that it would be sensible to align more closely the way in which proceedings of Standing Committees and Select Committees are prepared?

The right hon. Gentleman may well have a point. I shall consider that factor. The House may like to know that, at the moment, evidence takes an average of about six weeks to be published. I am glad that the Liaison Committee is examining whether all the evidence that is given to a Select Committee needs to be published.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to ask how many people read the proceedings? Does he agree that there is a danger of swamping Parliament with unnecessary paper?

I agree. This is one of many areas where modishness is fast outstripping common sense.

Does the Lord President agree that he should go in for productivity, not a reduction in service? Is it true that the last time the Services Committee came to a decision on the matter it said that a proof copy of the evidence should not be submitted to people? Is the Lord President now saying that evidence should not be published? Is the idea to reduce or to introduce more efficiency into the service provided for the public?

I did not say that evidence was not to be published. I said that I welcomed the Liaison Committee's asking for a modicum of discrimination in such matters.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to refer to the Select Committee on Members' Interests the matter of hon. Members voting on issues in which they might have an interest if proposed legislation duly becomes law.

No, Sir. I believe the long-established rules on this matter are well understood by hon. Members and work satisfactorily.

Can it be considered right for some Conservative Members to vote for legislation to denationalise British assets, such as Britoil, when they clearly have in mind making a profit for themselves? Does this not involve a conflict of interests, and should not this matter be referred to the appropriate Committee?

Equally, it would not be right for hon. Members with overdrafts to vote for a reduction in bank rate. Were the hon. Gentleman's proposal to be considered and extended, it would bring practically all parliamentary processes to a halt. That is why in the past there have been clear rules governing such matters, and there is nothing to suggest that those rules are out of date.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the anomaly that Labour Members who talk about Members' interests are often sponsored by trade unions, yet have no hesitation in voting on matters affecting trade unions?

I had noted that anomaly in a casual and disinterested fashion, but I do not believe that the House operates at its best when the motives of either side are called into question by the other.