asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the change in real wages costs per tonne in the United Kingdom coal industry in 1981–82.

Industrial wage costs per tonne fell in real terms by 2·6 per cent. in the year 1981–82 compared to 1980–81. This fall was due to higher productivity. Wage levels were maintained in real terms.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree, on this special occasion, that other costs must be taken into account, such as those of disasters in mines, like the Coventry accident this weekend, which was a terrible cost? Will the Minister, because of those circumstances, convey our deep thanks to all who took part in the rescue so speedily and so well, and convey to the injured and their loved ones our best wishes for a speedy recovery?

I am sure that on this occasion the hon. Member, with his long experience of the mining industry, expresses the mood and sentiment of both sides of the House. I visited the colliery on Saturday afternoon and the men in hospital. I am happy to report that at that time, and since, the men were well on the way to recovery. When I last heard, seven men were in hospital. I shall convey to the industry and to those involved in the excellent and courageous rescue operation the good wishes and the sentiments of the House.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that although productivity has shown a welcome marginal increase, the deficits of the National Coal Board look as if they will be above its estimates for the current year? How will those deficits be financed unless there is a speed up of closures of uneconomic pits?

Despite the present difficulties in the market, it is difficult to judge the current deficit. We hope that the National Coal Board will stay, as it wishes to, within its current EFL.

As one who represents a mining community, I share the sentiments of anguish and grief expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the colliery disaster.

As the hon. Member knows full well, the investment in the coal industry that is approved by the Government goes to the coal industry as a whole. As he also knows, the decisions on where to put that investment must be a matter for the board, and both Conservative and Labour Parties, when in Government, have given the coal industry since "Plan for Coal" £4½ billion in investment, £1½ billion in excess of that anticipated in "Plan for Coal".

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether any nuclear materials have been exported from the United Kingdom to South America over the past year.

The export of plutonium, uranium, thorium and their compounds is controlled through licences issued by the Department of Trade. Exports were made in the past 12 months under such licences to Brazil, Guyana, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. All exports were in such small quantities of materials that they could not be used to make a nuclear weapon. Where necessary, the materials are safeguarded under agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Is the Minister aware that there are almost certainly six plutonium bombs in Campo de Mayo? Although almost certainly the result of the Falklands war has been to expedite the Argentine nuclear capacity, based on ex-Nazi scientists, none the less, if we are exporting very little, what about the French? What help is France giving—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must question the Minister about the things for which he is responsible. He is not responsible for the French Government.

In that case, are we certain that exports to Peru do not find their way across the Andes to Argentina?

All the exports from the United Kingdom this year and in previous years have been of quantities insufficient to make a nuclear weapon. All exports of nuclear materials are covered by safeguard agreements and bilateral notes, effective through countries where there are intermediaries, such as the Federal Republic of Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the publicity available setting out the most up-to-date recommendations for the conservation of heat.

Yes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Is he aware that many local authorities are underspent on capital account and that the current estimate for this financial year is about £1,000 million? Does he not consider that public capital invested in thermal insulation of both domestic and other buildings would give the nation an immediate return in terms of the energy saved? What is his Department doing to persuade local authorities to improve their performance in this respect?

That is a matter primarily for the Department of the Environment. But my hon. Friend raises an important topic, and I am happy to tell him that a good number of the additional capital investment allocations already made to local authorities have included provision for precisely this sort of investment. About £1·2 million has been made available for additional grants under the homes insulation scheme over and above the level previously announced.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Select Committee on Energy recently produced a comprehensive report on the conservation of energy in buildings? When can we expect the Government's observations and some action on it?

The Chairman of the Select Committee was notified by the Department that we hoped to have our response available by Christmas. The response is already far advanced and I hope that we shall be able to keep to that deadline.

What methods have the Government at their disposal for making a judgment about the average level of conservation in domestic properties? How does the hon. Gentleman reckon that it has changed in the last two or three years?

We know the overall consumption level for energy. Often it is a matter of a guestimate to know how to attribute that. But there has been a decline of between 6 and 7 per cent. in recent years as a result of insulation and other measures taken in the home. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the figure in 1981 for, say, the number of lofts insulated showed a welcome increase on the year before. In 1981 some 800,000 householders either put in insulation for the first time or added to inadequate insulation already there.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of the oil industry to discuss the taxable capacity of future North Sea oil fields.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I last met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association on 2 December.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now the unanimous view of the oil companies and those who comment on and are knowledgeable about on the oil scene that the time has come for a change in the taxation of marginal fields especially, otherwise their development will be restricted? If there are to be changes, is it not appropriate that they should last at least five years, so that there can be planned development of those important assets?

I recognise that many future fields are likely to be smaller and may be more marginal than earlier fields. I am anxious to reach a better understanding with the industry on assessment of the taxable capacity of these fields. For that reason, consultations have been taking place with the oil industry. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make his own assessment on these matters, of course, but my hon. Friend may be assured that the position is being looked at constantly by the Government.

In the assessment of these matters, is it the Government's intention that net self-sufficiency in oil will be continued into the 1990s? Does that not mean that about 30 marginal fields will be required to be considered under very special taxation arrangements if they are to be brought into production?

Given the right hon. Gentleman's experience of Department of Energy matters, he will appreciate that it is not only taxation that influences decisions by the companies to proceed. I am happy to tell the House that today plans have been approved by Britoil for the Clyde field, which can now go ahead. This is a £1 billion project. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government have pursued a vigorous policy of licensing to create maximum exploration so that discoveries may be made and the position that he desires may be achieved.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that while taxation remission for the marginal fields is interesting, there is another way to go? It is to keep down production costs, especially of the facilities which are put over the fields. What assistance is the Department giving to British enterprises to ensure that when and if new production techniques are evolved Britain is in the forefront?

My Department is doing all that it can through the Offshore Supplies Office to give maximum encouragement to British companies in their efforts to obtain orders from the United Kingdom continental shelf. However, it would be a mistake for British industries to think that all their orders can be supplied from the continental shelf. With that in mind, we are doing all that we can to encourage our companies to bid for overseas work, especially on the Norwegian continental shelf.

Is the Minister aware that the frequent changes in taxation policy since the present Government came to office have made the taxation of oil companies scarcely intelligible and very capricious in its effect? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to simplify the structure and see whether he cannot create an incentive for further exploration, which, after all, is what we want to achieve in the North Sea?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman and I differ about our ultimate objectives for encouraging investment in the North Sea. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering carefully the best taxation policy to follow. However, I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that, until the end of November this year, no fewer than 102 exploration and appraisal wells had been drilled. This is second only to the record year of 1975, when 116 were drilled.

Under a Labour Government.

Yes. That was when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State. But I hope very much that, weather permitting, we shall be able to beat that record this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy by what amounts his predictions of United Kingdom total recoverable oil reserves have varied in the last five years; and what is the latest figure.

The estimated range of recoverable oil reserves has varied from between 3,000 million and 4,500 million tonnes in 1977 to between 2,100 million and 4,300 million tonnes in 1982. At 1 January 1982 the estimated total remaining recoverable reserves were between 1,750 million tonnes and 3,950 million tonnes.

As that answer presumably confirms that we are using up our oil supplies at a greater rate than we are discovering new recoverable reserves, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it essential that the utmost encouragement should be offered companies to drill in new fields? In the light of my right hon. Friend's replies to supplementary questions just now, will he confirm that the incentives are greater today than they were, say, four or five years ago?

There is little doubt that the incentives to explore for gas are greater today than they were four or five years ago. As a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act, companies are now being encouraged to explore for gas in a way that was not previously possible. I remind my hon. Friend, in addition, that the seventh and eigth rounds, especially the eighth, will offer considerable acreage to this end.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take further action to assist the energy-intensive industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent assessment he has made of energy price trends within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how electricity prices paid by British industry compare with those paid by industry in other European Economic Community countries.

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

Industrial energy prices were discussed at the NEDC last Wednesday. Generally speaking, they are broadly in line with those in other European countries. Industry will get further substantial help from next year's standstill in electricity prices, worth a total of £500 million to consumers as a whole, and also from the extension of the freeze on industrial gas prices.

As the intensive electricity users in Europe, in appropriate circumstances, will secure discounts ranging between 15 per cent. in France and 50 per cent. in Italy, compared with negligible figures in the United Kingdom, is my right hon. Friend not being misled by his Department? Will he consider one of the appropriate answers, and that is to enable the CEGB to sell direct to the energy-intensive industries in the United Kingdom?

The problem of electricity prices is directly related, as my hon. Friend well knows, to the costs of generating electricity, and they are not significantly affected by whether the consumer goes to the area board or direct to the CEGB, which in this country is not the normal approach. My hon. Friend knows, too, that the cost of coal is critical in this regard. However, the difference between what the average industrial consumer pays and what is paid by the heavy energy intensive high-load factor customer on CCL—contracted consumers load; the arrangement was brought in with the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Budget—is about 40 per cent. The man on that scheme pays up to 40 per cent. less per unit of electricity than the average industrial electricity consumer. Incidentally, I belatedly take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) to the Opposition Front Bench on energy matters.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the assistance given to heavy energy-intensive users of energy so far, but will he accept that industry itself is always nervous about accepting estimates and figures that come from his Department? Will he consider having a regular, authoratitive, agreed and unclassified statement on energy disparities with other European countries similar to that achieved through the NEDC?

I do not accept that what my hon. Friend says about the nature of figures emanating from my Department is warranted. We participated fully in the NEDC task force, and at present we are well content to allow the CBI and the trade associations affected, together with the electricity supply industry and the gas corporation, assisted by our good offices, to reach agreed figures on this matter. I hope that we shall get the figures sorted out quickly. In fact, we are very near to that, and I do not believe that there is any major difference between the CBI and my Department and the Government on the figures.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that heavy energy users in industry face not only higher energy prices than their continental rivals, but 20 per cent. higher costs for their heavy fuel oil? Notwithstanding the concessions given during the past year and the freeze on prices, does he accept that this small but important sector of heavy energy users in industry needs further help, and will he do all that he can to assist in the forthcoming Budget?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is an assiduous reader of Hansard, will note my hon. Friend's last remark. However, it is equally important to get the matter into perspective. Although there are certain disparities, they apply to a very small number of consumers. The disparity probably affects those with a load factor of over 80 per cent.—certainly over 70 per cent.—and even those with a load factor of over 70 per cent. are only 15 per cent. of industry as a whole. As I said, that represents only a part of the industries concerned.

If only a small number of firms are affected, the problem is easy to cure.

I am sorry. I should have said that it is 5 per cent. of industry using 15 per cent. of industry's electricity. If the tariff were tilted in such a way that other consumers paid more to help those consumers, that would cause equal dismay in other quarters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable force in the CBI's argument that industry is being asked to bear the cost of many of the surrenders that have taken place year after year to the National Union of Mineworkers? Does he also agree that every time an uneconomic pit is kept open, which means that coal costs more, it means that jobs can be lost in private industry?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of keeping down coal costs. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will do all that they can to assist and support the Coal Board in its current drive to make the industry more efficient and cut the cost of coal.

rose—

Order. I now propose to call several hon. Members from the Opposition side of the House.

Does the Secretary of State accept that industries such as the special steels industry of South Yorkshire have been badly hit and appear to face competition which enjoys favourable energy prices? That is because Governments in competing countries intervene and give subsidies which in some respects appear to be in breach of Community rules and appear to have gone unremarked upon? Does the Secretary of State accept that, even in countries where energy prices may be lower than they are in this country, the input price of energy and raw materials appears to be a great deal higher than here, and that Sir Terence Beckett and his friends have had little to say about that?

Again, it is important to get the matter into perspective. The steel industry throughout the world is facing serious and difficult problems. To speak as though the problems were peculiar to the steel industry in this country or the one about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned bears no relation to the truth. About 6 per cent. of steel costs, both direct and indirect, are accounted for by electricity. The Japanese, who are the toughest competitors in steel, pay more for electricity than do steel makers in this country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coal industry in this country contributes greatly to keeping costs down? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is also aware that coal prices on the Continent are subsidised to a high degree, sometimes by as much as between £18 and £30 a tonne.

Order. We must have a question, not an argument.

I am aware of the coal industry's contribution and I am also aware of how much greater a contribution it could make.

On electricity, could not the right hon. Gentleman use the Energy Bill, which is now going through the House, to remove the non-discrimination clauses on electricity tariffs for industrial users?

It is a nice question whether in the long run industry would benefit from the removal of the non-discrimination clauses. The hon. Gentleman should consider the case of gas, where there is no similar non-discrimination, no undue preference statute. Under the Labour Government the price of gas to industry was forced up and the price of gas to the home was kept down. I therefore very much doubt whether the practical facts of politics are such that industry would benefit from the removal of the undue discrimination clause.

Will my right hon. Friend pause to recollect that energy-intensive industries are concerned not only with gas and electricity? Will he say anything about the future of the foundry coking coal subsidy, and whether those prices are still to be related to the oil coefficient thermal value?

The last matter is a trifle too technical for me, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who knows all about these things, will be only too happy to write a letter, expressed in simple terms, which I might be able to understand. The future of the renewal of the foundry coke subsidy is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many privately owned nuclear powered generating stations are in operation in the United Kingdom; and what recent requests he has received from individuals or private companies to build such nuclear powered generating stations.

None.

Why are we persisting with the provision in the Energy Bill that allows private companies to be main generators of nuclear power? If the Minister does not sympathise with that, why does he not scrap it?

If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is being a little perverse. It has been made clear that the Government are erecting a further barrier that would lie in the way of a private generator who wished to build a nuclear power station. As the right hon. Gentleman was happy that a private generator did not require the Secretary of State's consent when he was in the Department of Energy, I cannot understand his concern now.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have been made to him concerning the levels of standing charges charged by the electricity and gas industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what response he has had to his proposal that standing charges should represent no more than half the total sum charged to the domestic consumer by electricity and gas boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the independent reviews of domestic gas and electricity standing charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what response he has received from the gas and electricity industries to his proposals on standing charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether the electricity and gas industries have yet responded to his request that they should limit standing charges for small consumers of energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether any progress has been made in revising the structure of standing charges for small consumers of gas and electricity.

The nationalised gas and electricity industries are still considering my proposal that standing charges should represent no more than 50 per cent. of a domestic consumer's bill. Representations from individual members of the public are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal. Meanwhile, the independent review of their standing charges commissioned by the industries is making good progress and I would expect the results to be published in the new year.

rose—

Order. As the six hon. Members who tabled the questions that are being answered together are all Government Members, I propose to vary my usual custom and call an hon. Member from each side of the House in turn. Therefore, some hon. Members may have to wait.

My right hon. Friend's answer confirms that there is extensive and widespread support for his efforts, but does he accept that there is an impression that the industries are dragging their feet? Is he getting proper co-operation, or is he being thwarted in his efforts?

There are some people in the industries who are not fully aware that this is a matter of elementary commercial common sense. There is a small but highly aggrieved sector of the population who feel strongly on this matter and the scheme would alleviate their anxiety. Over one-third of the letters that my Department receives on standing charges are on that relatively narrow point. However, the industries do have a fair point when they say that they would like to see the results of the independent reviews that I have mentioned before they come to a conclusion.

Does that answer mean that we are not to have the 50 per cent. concession before the completion of the review for which the Minister promised to press the industries last week during questions on energy? Is he aware of the typical case of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Rees in Merthyr—[Interruption] who received a gas bill for £10, of which £9 was the standing charge? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have an answer to the 50 per cent. proposal that he has put forward? Will it be before Christmas or after?

The moving example that the hon. Gentleman has just adduced will assist in the process that I am seeking to push along.

When, finally, we hope, the industries agree to my right hon. Friend's excellent suggestion, will he endeavour to have it implemented from now? In particular, will he do all that he can to ensure that old-age pensioners eventually get full relief front standing charges?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the industries are responsible for their tariffs and I have no power to direct them. I have called upon them to make a modest change in their tariffs and I hope that in due time they will do so. To give all pensioners full relief would be a costly exercise and I do not think that the extra cost that would result to other consumers could be justified.

The Secretary of State complains that he has no power to direct the industries. He will be aware that there is an Energy Bill before the House at the moment. Why does he not table an amendment to give himself such powers?

The Energy Bill relates to the electricity supply industry, whereas this matter relates to electricity and gas.

rose—

I shall call the hon. Gentleman after I have called other hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative, may I ask him to put strong pressure on the boards to respond, as discussions on standing charges have been going on for at least two years now? Will his Department try to agree, particularly with the gas and electricity boards, the nature of the standing charge calculation, on which there appear to be substantial errors at present?

I hope that the independent reviews that have been put in train by the industries at my request will settle the problem once and for all and that there will be no more errors, as my hon. Friend calls them. He is right to say that the standing charges have been a matter of concern for two years, if not longer, but the 50–50 proposal—if I may call it that—was put forward as recently as October this year.

If the Minister's proposals were implemented, what percentage of the customers of the electricity and gas boards would be helped for at least one-quarter of the year?

About 1 million electricity consumers and about 1 million gas consumers would be assisted by the proposals.

In view of the widespread concern among small consumers, particularly the elderly, will my right hon. Friend give some idea of how he attempts to define a "small consumer"?

Yes. The category can be simply defined by quoting people such as Mrs. Rees—I am not sure whether she is any relation of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—whose quarterly standing charge is greater than the charge for the units consumed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of gas supplies from the southern sector of the North Sea in the current year.

Total gas production from the southern basin of the United Kingdom continental shelf in the first nine months of this year was approximately 19·5 billion cubic metres.

Will the Minister concede that in due time we shall have to import gas to offset the decline in the United Kingdom gas industry? What arrangements are being made with the Norwegians to use the United Kingdom as a land bridge, both to import, and probably to export, Norwegian gas in order to balance and reduce the dependence of Western Europe on Soviet gas?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at present Britain imports approximately 20 per cent. of our gas requirement from Norway. It has already been suggested to the Norwegians that the United Kingdom might be used as a land bridge but so far they have not shown much enthusiasm for the proposal. However, the Government are endeavouring to ensure that there will be adequate supplies of gas by enacting the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act, which now makes it much more attractive for companies to explore for gas. With regard to the southern basin, no fewer than 38 gas blocks are on offer in the eighth licensing round.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that British Gas is now predicting a serious shortfall in gas supplies in the late 1980s? Is that not directly due to the failure of British Gas over the years to give a decent price to southern producers?

British Gas is making every effort to obtain gas purchases so that such a deficit will not be reached. It is best to leave pricing to British Gas. It is not something on which we can intervene.

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what potential there is for the development of wind power as a renewable source of energy.

The potential of wind energy is high. My Department is funding further research and development, including the construction of a large wind generator on Orkney.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. If he revisits North Devon, may I suggest that he and his officers visit the Isle of Lundy, where, in the past month, an aerogenerator has been installed which creates enough power for the entire local load, with surplus capacity for the future? Does he agree that we should be planning both offshore and onshore aerogenerators in places where the wind blows regularly?

I am familiar with the 55kW aerogenerator on Lundy. I hope that it will be a success and that as a result of experiments throughout the country we shall be able to embark on a wider scale exploitation of wind power.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to encourage the growth of industrial combined heat and power schemes.

The Energy Bill will positively encourage such schemes. It will remove legislative constraints and establish for the first time a statutory framework for fair dealings between the operators of these schemes and the public electricity supply industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that much of industry is rightly complaining about uncompetitive energy prices and is now regarding the Energy Bill as a means of providing an alternative opportunity for producing their own heat and power more economically than by using existing nationalised industries? Will my hon. Friend give more publicity to the opportunities that the Energy Bill will provide for fair competition in the private sector?

The Bill was embarked upon after careful consultation with various industries and their representatives. We have every reason to believe that there is a demand for the new regime created by the Bill and we shall give it all the publicity that we can.

Since the Secretary of State has taken an unusually intelligent decision not to proceed with the fast breeder reactor, is it not possible to divert funds from wasteful expenditure on nuclear methods to increased public support for combined heat and power?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information from, but what he said about the Government's statement on fast breeder policy is an absolute travesty. The merits of CHP are clear and established and are not advanced by people using them as a stalking horse for anti-nuclear sentiment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the total amount of energy consumed in the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1982, expressed in terms of tonnes of coal or coal equivalent; and how this compares with consumption in each of the three previous years.

United Kingdom energy consumption at 163 million tonnes of coal or coal equivalent in the first six months of 1982 was 0·7 per cent., 7·2 per cent. and 14·5 per cent. lower than in the corresponding periods of 1981, 1980, and 1979 respectively. I shall arrange for details to be published in the Official Report.

Does not that answer illustrate the serious nature of the problem that affects our energy industry? Is it not clear that the amputation of demand in Britain has created more problems than it has solved?

The answer illustrates in part the impact and depth of the recession. The hon. Gentleman will be particularly interested, in view of his attitude to conservation, that it shows clearly that energy consumption per unit of industrial output fell by 10 per cent. in that period. All concerned with energy efficency will welcome that.

Does not the fall in energy consumption reinforce the need to ensure that the National Coal Board produces coal at competitive prices and continues in its determination to close uneconomic pits?

It clearly shows, as has been said from both sides of the House many times, that if we are to achieve more markets for coal or any other fuel we have to be concerned about price competitiveness and security of supply. A key ingredient—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) keeps interrupting from a sedentary position. I repeat to him that capital investment has been £4½ billion since "Plan for Coal". That is £1½ billion in excess of that anticipated for the period.

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

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this sphere of research should be undertaken on a Community basis rather than on the basis of the present mixture of national and Community research?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The interests of Community members in relation to renewables are different. When one looks in detail at the matters that are subject to Community programmes one realises that some renewables—geothermals for example—are of greater importance to Britain and are not as fully covered by the Community as Britain's interests demand.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss productivity in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the National Coal Board.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly and discuss all aspects of the board's business, including productivity.

Does the Minister agree that the miners have met every productivity target that they have been asked to meet since "Plan for Coal"? What does the Minister have to say about the disgraceful remarks made by the director of the CBI about the miners affecting the economy so badly?

I do not think that anyone on the Government side of the House has a more consistent record than I in arguing for the mining industry, when that is merited. We all wish to argue on the basis of fact. Until the last two and half years the productivity increments expected under "Plan for Coal" had not occurred. That is fact. We all welcome the current increased productivity. Equally, we all understand the difficulties through which the coal industry is passing. None of us wishes to underestimate those difficulties or to give an incorrect slant to the facts, as some outside the House might.

Will the Minister warn the NCB that it would be a recipe for all-out industrial action if the NCB tried to force the closure of pits with workable coal reserves? I refer to Scottish pits such as Cardowan, where over 1,100 people are employed and which is on the NCB hit list. Do the Government seriously want a repetition of the 1974 confrontation which led to the ignominious defeat of the Tory Government?

As the NCB has made clear, there is no hit list. The hon. Gentleman's language does not assist the coal industry in trying, in the face of extremely difficult conditions, to develop markets for today and the future. The Government are not in the business of warning any side of the coal industry. The coal industry knows the difficulties and will make decisions rationally. Governments do not have the ability to determine the future of individual pits, let alone decide on the engineering availability of coal in any pit in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the terms of reference for the discussions between the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority and the chairmen of the generating boards on the programme for the fast breeder reactor.

As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority has been invited, in consultation with the generating boards, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., and the National Nuclear Corporation, to draw up a fast breeder reactor development programme which makes the best use of our resources and experience.

What conditions has the Minister attached to the study? In particular, can he say whether the plans are contingent upon the participation of other countries? Is the domestic industry free to produce its own proposals?

To the extent that the domestic groups to which I have referred have been asked to draw up plans, the Government have said publicly that in the world of fast breeder reactors they would welcome the possibility and prospect of international co-operation. Equally, it has not been made a pre-condition, because obviously it might restrict the organisations in developing proper plans for our country.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the main objectives of the study is to simplify the design so that the cost of the fast breeder reactor can be brought within the realms of economic possibility?

It would be premature to deal with points such as those that my hon. Friend has just made. We wish to secure the best fast breeder development programme for our country.

Is the Minister aware of the anxiety, not just in the locality of this fast breeder reactor, but over a more widespread area, that there is a possibility of a slowing down in the programme? Will he confirm that the Government will not put any obstacles in the way and ensure that the fast breeder programme continues actively?

I have difficulty in understanding the right hon. Gentleman's comments, because anxiety was expressed during the period of the review. However, I see from the local press that the director of Dounreay, the chairman of the Dounreay action council, the industrial head of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the chairman of Caithness district council were pleased with the announcement. It seems to me that the fact that all those in the area who were legitimately worried during the process of the review have been reassured is crucial for the future of the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss electricity prices.

I am in regular contact with the chairman of the CEGB on all matters of mutual interest.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he thrash out the question of prices so that the small minority of intensive users can have a better deal? May I remind my right hon. Friend that he earlier said that they are not getting electricity at internationally competitive prices? If neither my right hon. Friend nor the chairman can do anything, will they prevail on someone else in the Government to take action, as those users are a crucial part of British industry?

I recognise my hon. Friend's anxiety, which he has voiced on a number of occasions. The Government have already done a great deal. I mentioned the £100 million contracted consumer load scheme announced in this year's Budget and I have made it clear, that, with the industry's agreement, there will be a standstill on electricity prices next year. In real terms they will fall for everyone. That is of great benefit. Over one half of the £500 million benefit will go to industry. Certain countries subsidise consumers in various circumstances, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that we equal every subsidy given. If that is what he is suggesting, how does he suggest that we pay for it?

If my right hon. Friend agrees that the key to electricity prices is the competitive position of coal, what is the economic logic of the National Coal Board exporting coal to the Continent at prices below those available to United Kingdom customers?

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to one particular contract with France. The National Coal Board is doing everything that it can to make the industry more efficient and bring down the cost of coal. That will help British industry and the nation, and I hope that it will command the support of both sides of the House.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing improved office accommodation for hon. Members.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he has any proposals to improve the working conditions of hon. Members.

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the adequacy of accommodation for hon. Members in the House.

The matter of hon. Members' accommodation has been raised with me by a number of hon. Members.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Opposition's anxiety over the lack of progress on this? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the offices in Parliament Street and Bridge Street will not be available for another five years? Does he accept that the efficiency of hon. Members is affected by their working conditions, which would not be tolerated outside this place?

The extent to which our working effectiveness is governed by the accommodation available is a subject for argument in the House. I am advised that the buildings should be available, if the plan is confirmed by the House, in 1987–88. I can confirm that progress has been made in the consideration of phase 1 of the site. Evidence should be published before Christmas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who know about our working conditions are appalled by them and believe that it is our own fault that we have made no progress? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that three years ago proposals were made for a new building on the other side of the road, but nothing has happened? More rapid progress is required.

The work undertaken by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee deserves the praise of the House. It is proceeding in circumstances where its decisions by no means have the unanimous approval of the Chamber; in fact, quite the opposite. As to the hon. Member's first point, I was not aware that the public were appalled at the working conditions of hon. Members. I believe that they are much more appalled at the luxury of other public offices.

How much longer will we have to tolerate the position where some hon. Members have to share cramped office space, about the size of an average bathroom, while Members of the other place have nice big, spacious, luxurious offices to themselves at the other end of the same building? Is that not another argument for supporting Labour Party policy to abolish the other place so that the office accommodation at the other end of the building can be put to better use by the elected representatives of the people?

I realise that the case for the abolition of the other place becomes a little threadbare as it is debated ahead of the general election. I shall give the hon. Gentleman whatever argument he chooses to reinforce it.

Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that we are coming to the end of information technology year? When he looks at the present office accommodation will he consider what steps might be taken so that we can use some of the excellent technology and probably save a little on research assistants, of whom some people might think there are too many?

I note what my hon. Friend says about the extent to which the House now enjoys the services of research assistants. With regard to the general issue of information technology, the use to which the Parliament Street site might be put, is one of the factors that will engage the attention of the Administration Committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that every time there is an improvement in accommodation for hon. Members attendance in the Chamber declines? Is he further aware that since the abolition of counts it is normal for there to be about 30 Members on the Government Benches and 12 Members on the Opposition Benches and nobody else, even during major debates? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend think long and coolly before he further discourages hon. Members from coming to the Chamber?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. Other than the allocation of funds, those are not matters for my determination or the Government's. They are matters for the House. I am certain that when the House comes to resolve those matters it will take into account the overwhelming necessity to ensure that the Chamber remains at the heart of Parliament's acts and deliberations.

While I do not depart from, or disagree with, what the Leader of the House has said, may I ask whether he is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are accommodated in appalling conditions in the Cloisters downstairs, with 14 hon. Members sharing a corridor room? The room that I share is an elegant Gothic slum, which is so small that we cannot get to the bookcase because of the filing cabinet and we cannot get to the filing cabinet because there is a desk in the way. Will the Lord President say that the allocation of funds, over which he has responsibility, is something that he will treat with a great deal more urgency? Will he announce an allocation of funds so that the new building across the road can be brought into use long before 1987 or 1988?

I preface my remarks by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), whom I do not see in this place, will confirm that for about 10 years I had a desk in the Cloisters, and I found it an admirable working place. If it has degenerated into a slum, I can only solemnly reflect upon what ill-fortune has befallen it since I left. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the funding of the proposition would become part of the PESC programme, with which the Treasury is involved. Doubtless the representations of the House, after it has considered phase 1 of the Parliament Street site, will be taken into account in the implementation of the PESC programme.

Despite all that we have heard, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great privilege to be here and that our work cannot be compared with any other occupation? Is it not therefore somewhat unseemly to have these continual complaints from the Opposition?

The arguments that concern us are not merely advanced by the Opposition. It is properly a House of Commons affair. I agree with my hon. Friend that to serve in this building and Parliament is one of the greatest privileges that one can acquire. Although working conditions are obviously important, none the less they are, if not subsidiary, complementary to the main role of speaking for one's constituents in the Chamber.

Does not the Leader of the House think that there is some mild element of humbug and hypocrisy in the attitude of Ministers, who enjoy adequate accommodation and staff, yet treat with urbane contempt Back Benchers' requests for similar facilities?

I believe that I would be advancing exactly the same arguments if I were sitting on the Back Benches as I advance from the Dispatch Box. My judgment will not determine the matter. It is a matter for the House itself.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider and comment on certain proposed legislation and draft Orders in Council, he will make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government on reference of matters to the Northern Ireland Committee of this House.

I do not envisage any changes in existing arrangements, pending devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Northern Ireland Assembly was preparing to debate security, for which it has no responsibility, the Northern Ireland Committee of this House was permitted to discuss what a dog licence should cost in Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend think that the matter was properly thought out when the policy of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 was laid before the House?

I gained the impression that some of the Northern Ireland Members were anxious that the Draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 should be considered by the Northern Ireland Committee of the House. Whether the Northern Ireland Committee could also consider matters of security must, I imagine, be a matter for representation in the normal way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nothing so far done under the Northern Ireland Act 1982 has reduced the responsibility for legislation, constituents or general policy, of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies?

Certainly that is my understanding in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland Committee, which is the subject of the question.