asked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements in output per man-shift figures in the coal industry he anticipates in the next decade.

The Government have always made it clear that the future of the industry can be secure only if it can produce coal at a competitive price. The greater the improvement in productivity, the better the prospects of doing this.

My hon. Friend has not given any figures, but does he agree that the strike against the closure of the Tymawr Lewis Merthyr mine because of geological faulting in the area is not in the interests of the Welsh people? Does he agree also that the only way to improve the output per man-shift of the mines is by the closure of uneconomic pits, by the opening of new mines that have rich seams and by the modernisation of those mines that are capable of being modernised? Is that not the way to a viable industry? Is that not in the best interests of the mining industry?

Certainly improvements in productivity are a key feature of the long-term potential of the industry. Both sides of the House recognise the sad fact that, in the past 10 years, productivity has increased by only 4 per cent. and not by the 4 per cent. per annum for which we all wished. Obviously no strike can be of benefit to the industry's current and future customers. With regard to the particular, I am advised by the National Coal Board that the mine in question, with 530 men—all of whom have been offered employment elsewhere—and an output per man-shift of 0·59 tonnes, is losing at a rate expected to be £7 million per annum. I in no way blame the men They are clearly working in an area of deep geological difficulty in a pit that is more than 120 years old. The facts speak for themselves.

Will the Minister remind his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that, although coal mining remains a most disagreeable and dangerous job, miners have worked miracles of productivity in spite of working in seams—

That is not true.

—which were past their best years ago? Why cannot coal receive the same treatment as agriculture in the EC? Why should we not have an EC coal preference policy? Does the Minister agree that we have the best and most efficient coal mining industry in the EC? What are the Government doing about that?

Fundamental to the Opposition when in government and to the Government today has been the assumption, as enunciated under "Plan for Coal", that, along with massive investment in our coal industry, to the tune now of £4·5 billion, there would go an acceptance of the reality of the need to close, in an attractive industry, uneconomic capacity. The industry is making that judgment. The Government have given, on behalf of the taxpayer, massive subventions. The industry is seeking to make itself more viable.

Surely the Minister must agree that in the long-term future of the mining industry in Britain must rest on new capacity, which means new pit sinkings. There has not been much evidence of new pit sinkings by the Government since they came to office in 1979.

That is where we must deal with the facts. The facts were that, under "Plan for Coal", new capacity was expected to come about from long-life mines combines with new pit sinkings. The new capacity has been produced, as was clearly shown in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy. The uneconomic capacity of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year was expected to close, but that simply has not happened. Those are the full facts in a world of over supply of coal that we, who wish to see the industry succeed, must face.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Glass and Glazing Federation for the purpose of discussing problems of energy conservation.

I have not met the federation. However, my Department maintains contacts with officers of the federation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all sectors of the glass industry, including the flat glass and the glass fibre sectors, have invested many millions of pounds each year in their respective areas and are now concerned about what the Government will do about introducing a comprehensive conservation policy? Will he make a statement about it and take the earliest opportunity to meet the federation in each sector?

If the federation requests a meeting I shall, of course, consider meeting its representatives. No such request has so far been received. Government incentives for domestic energy conservation are concentrated on the most cost-effective measures. I estimate that between £400 million and £500 million was invested in domestic double glazing during 1981.

How are the Rayner investigations into conservation policies proceeding? Would it not be better if all the Government's insulation and conservation policies were brought together under the roof of the Department of Energy?

The Government will give due consideration to the Rayner examination. It will cover energy conservation in a number of Government Departments. We shall pay careful attention to the recommendations that appear in the report, and we shall make our consideration of the report available to the House in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the extent to which coal has replaced other fuels in particular uses over the last four years.

On 1 January 1979, coal's share of total inland energy consumption was 35·3 per cent., petroleum's share was 41 per cent. Coal's share by the end of 1981 had increased to 37·4 per cent. while petroleum's had declined to 34·9 per cent. Though coal has increased its percentage share in a smaller energy market, provisional figures for 1982 show a decline as a consequence of the added oil burn incurred due to the rail strike.

I thank the Minister for that information. Is he aware that many firms are slashing their fuel bills by switching to coal? One Merseyside firm slashed its energy bill in one year by £150,000 by switching to coal. Will the Minister give an assurance that the help that the Government give to firms switching from other fuels to coal will continue after 31 March?

The hon. Gentleman is making a valid comment about the scheme that is managed by the Department of Industry. The projects that have already been approved will produce an additional 585,000 tonnes a year of coal burn. If all projects under consideration are approved, the increase will be 1,244,000 tonnes a year. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Does the Minister recognise the importance for the coal industry of the switch from oil to coal in the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of the important potential market for solid fuel in the Province for the National Coal Board?

The details are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I am conscious and aware of the background to the issue to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the taxpayer is already subsidising the coal industry to the tune of over £1 billion a year? If coal is to make further inroads into the general energy market, is it not important that miners make an effort to reduce the cost of coal produced?

The substantial taxpayers' subvention to the mining industry has continued for many years. It is clear that if the industry is to have a greater future it must keep control of costs and ensure security of supply. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to see the coal industry continue to retain its market wish both these things to happen.

Although the price of oil was turning to the advantage of the coal industry, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we shall be dependent on coal in the years ahead? Will he reconsider pit closures and recognise that the industrial dispute in South Wales, which is spreading to other areas and which will begin in Yorkshire on Monday, is the result of the lack of capital investment in South Wales pits to make them more productive and to ensure that they are long lived?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is somewhat tangential to the main question. Investment in South Wales is about £30 million a year. With only about 7 per cent. of the nation's total coal production producing about 42½ per cent. of the nation's coal losses, a subsidy of about £125 million will be paid this year to cover the losses of the South Wales coalfield.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the price of oil drops to between $20 and $25 a barrel, oil will become rather competitive with coal and coal could have a declining market?

In common with all those who wish to see the success of the coal industry, I want to see the industry contain its costs and ensure security of supply. Coal can be competitive irrespective of the price changes the we can expect to take place in all other competing products.

The Minister has quoted certain figures for South Wales. Does he accept that capital investment in the South Wales coalfield has been cut by about 40 per cent. in real terms in the past few years and that "Plan for Coal" in South Wales terms has been ripped up unilaterally by the Government. Will he bring together the tripartite committee on the South Wales coalfield—the Government, the NCB and the NUM—to thrash out an answer to the problem? That would be a far better way of proceeding.

The hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the fact that the National Coal Board, which considers the interests of the nation, advises the Government on where best to invest. Similarly, he cannot ignore the reality that this year the coal industry is having to invest about £125 million to cover losses as well as £30 million merely to maintain the current position in South Wales. There has been a continuation of losses for years and years. That is the reality that the coal industry must face when advising the Government on their investment policies for the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any further proposals for privatisation and denationalisation within his responsibilities.

It is the Government's firm intention to maintain the momentum of the privatisation programme, but I have no new proposals to announce at the present time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing answer, as he has led the way in denationalisation? Is there not a strong case for plans to be prepared now for the complete denationalisation of the British Gas Corporation?

There may be opportunities for further injections of private capital into aspects of the British Gas Corporation and for further inroads to be made into the gas corporation's monopoly. As I have said, I have no proposals to announce now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we discussed the disposition of Wytch Farm on a previous occasion he doubted whether the figure that I suggested represented a true valuation? As that has now been confirmed as the correct figure, will he assure us that he will not privatise Wytch Farm at half the valuation that has been put on it by the British Gas Corporation?

It is a well-known ploy of those who do not wish to sell an asset to place upon it a valuation that will ensure that there will be no takers.

As the Minister's Britoil shares have lost half their value since he sold them only a few months ago, will he say why he always gets it wrong one way or the other?

The right hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The shares have not lost half their value—not nearly half. The discount on the partly paid shares represents a discount on the fully paid value. The right hon. Gentleman was once a distinguished City editor. If he could recall those days, he would understand this point. As for signs of the fall, even the right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that there has been a change in the nature and state of the oil market since the flotation of Britoil.

If my right hon. Friend considers the privatisation of any of the public utilities in future, will he ensure that the small shareholders who apply for some of the shares are given a better opportunity than that which was made available to them when shares in Associated British Ports were offered to the public? Is he aware that many Scottish shareholders were very disappointed that they were not given any shares on that occasion?

The Associated British Ports flotation is not a matter for me, but it is Government policy to use every means to encourage small shareholders to subscribe to privatisation issues and especially to encourage employees to do so. I am glad to say that we have been extremely successful in that regard.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in both the Amersham ramp and the Britoil flop he has displayed a spectacular incompetence that is unrivalled even among his colleagues? As he appears to think that Britoil has been a success, does he not think that it is time he sent a letter to those who bought shares on his recommendation explaining what a wise and prudent investment it has been?

The right hon. Gentleman is showing himself to be characteristically schizoid. In the face of flotation, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends accused the Government of selling Britoil shares too cheaply, or providing a rip off for the City and so on. Now that they have got it completely wrong—

The right hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

—and we have achieved an excellent price for the taxpayer, they complain about that. They neither understand, although the right hon. Gentleman might, nor like markets. They cannot bear the idea that prices sometimes move up, sometimes move down, and that they cannot fix them.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that we are disinclined to take lessons on the market economy from a Secretary of State who spectacularly misjudged the market for both Amersham and Britoil, who in one case sold the assets of the nation cheap and in the other brought a British oil company, because of its financial weakness, to its knees? Is he aware that it will therefore be unable to fulfil its role in the North sea?

The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to damage Britoil with that utterly unfounded allegation. If he had the power to damage it he would. The company operates in the North sea, is successful and will continue to be successful. With regard to the price, the right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that the price was that which was thought to be right by the underwriters who underwrote that issue. That is true for Amersham as well. They are professionals who, I venture to believe, are better placed than the right hon. Gentleman to judge the right price. It comes down to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot bear the idea that, in a market, prices move.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in establishing a system of energy audits for domestic and industrial consumers.

Considerable energy savings have already been made as a consequence of energy audits carried out in industry and commerce under the Government's industrial energy thrift scheme, energy audit scheme and energy survey schemes. On the domestic side, my Department is closely in touch with several organisations who are developing home audit energy schemes.

I welcome that reply, which shows that my right hon. Friend acknowledges the fact that many firms and householders would like to engage in energy conservation but do not know how to set about it. Is he aware of the development trial that has been set up by the Devon energy group? If he is aware of it, will he give that scheme some support?

I am aware of the interest that my hon. Friend has always shown in schemes of this type, especially those that relate to the Devon area. My Department has outlined to the Dartington Institute the terms on which we are prepared to support that project. It is a do-it-yourself system that was originated by the London School of Economics. It has been tried successfully with Government funding by 2,800 members of the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and its friends. The system is being developed further by the Devon energy project and we wish it well.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the number of pensioners who have had their electricity or gas supplies maintained whose supplies would otherwise have been disconnected by virtue of heavy debt; and if he will make a statement.

It is not practicable to make such an estimate, but pensioners in general have a good payment record.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that I welcome that compassionate scheme that the Government have introduced? Will he press the electricity and gas boards to act much more quickly? They need a bomb under them. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when one asks energy boards to take up a case that is obviously urgent—otherwise one would not ask them to do so—they take much too long? Will he do something to speed up the process?

I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but I assure him that the gas and electricity boards take this matter seriously. They have co-operated with the Government and they will shortly implement the 50–50 policy.

Although such organisations as Age Concern say that few elderly people are disconnected—one is too many—will the Minister confirm that elderly people who live with younger relatives are not protected from disconnection? What do the Government intend to do about that? Incidentally, the Opposition do not favour bombs.

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the number of disconnections has fallen sharply. Electricity disconnections have fallen by about 25 per cent. and gas disconnections have fallen by about 30 per cent. in the past two years. Some 1·5 million pensioners are among those who benefit from the £325 million that is provided each year by the Government through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to assist with fuel bills.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative in connection with the rebate scheme, but will he please identify whether the South-Eastern electricity board is refusing to implement this scheme, which would be of tremendous help to pensioners in the south-east and for which they have waited a long time since his first announcement?

The South-Eastern electricity board is implementing the scheme, but, regrettably, not in the same way as most other boards. The result is that many people who would benefit substantially are benefiting by only about half as much as they might.

The Minister referred to pensioners' heavy debts. Are not the Government responsible as they have imposed 10 per cent. increases in fuel costs in three consecutive years, thereby putting a considerable financial burden on pensioners? Does he agree that if they had not been faced with that extra cost they would not need subsidies?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps that the Government have taken are far and away the most generous that have been taken to assist people who need help with their bills.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the United Kingdom's energy requirements are met by the following means (a) coal, (b) oil, (c) nuclear, and (d) other; and how this compares with France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America.

In 1981, 37 per cent. of United Kingdom inland energy consumption was met from coal, 35 per cent. from oil, 23 per cent. from gas and 5 per cent. from nuclear and hydropower. I shall circulate figures for the other countries in the Official Report.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he sure that the proper proportion of energy requirements met by coal will be maintained in Britain? Does he have any plans for the use of coal other than for burning?

The figures that I have given and the figures that the hon. Gentleman will see circulated in the Official Report show that the proportion of our total energy consumption from coal is higher than in the countries mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's question. However, coal's future depends overwhelmingly on the performance of the coal industry. If it can make its way, be competitive and cut costs, it has a great future.

Is not the right answer that there should be an amalgam of these various fuels? Will my right hon. Friend note that it is nonsense that a substantial number of people who are only 7 miles from Coventry are unable to obtain a gas supply? Will he try to do something about that?

My hon. Friend is right on his last point. One of the tragedies is that the monopoly of the British Gas Corporation over many years brought gas exploration in the North sea practically to a halt—at one point it was brought completely to a halt—while North sea oil exploration was going ahead fast. Happily, now that that monopoly has been broken by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act, exploration for gas in the North sea is growing rapidly.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information as to the relative costs of power generation by coal, oil, nuclear and renewable sources are available to him.

The CEGB has today published a comprehensive memorandum on the relative costs of power generation. It confirms that a new nuclear power station can realistically be expected to produce electricity more cheaply than a coal or oil-fired station.

I have no doubt that the House will be glad that the CEGB has got round to publishing the report after months of delay. Does the report look at nuclear power on the basis of current rather than historic costs, because we cannot have a comparison of coal, oil and nuclear power based on historic costs for nuclear power and current costs for coal and oil? Has the CEGB taken that major factor into consideration?

I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual sense of fair play, will be pleased that the CEGB has taken so long to produce a thorough and comprehensive review of the comparable costs. I shall make sure that copies of the report are put in the Library today. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to study it with care. All aspects of the methodological queries that have been raised in the past are covered in the report, which states that a new PWR is expected to produce electricity at 2·61p per kilowat hour over its lifetime compared with 3·88p per kilowatt hour for a new coal-fired station. Therefore, the PWR is expected to produce electricity at only two thirds of the cost of a coal-fired station.

What allowance is made in those calculations for the cost of decommissioning power stations, particularly nuclear ones?

Full costs are taken into account for decommissioning. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as well as other hon. Members, would like to have the benefit of studying the report thoroughly before pursuing further questions on it.

Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that the Magnox nuclear power stations are now producing the cheapest electricity available and that that is why the electricity supply unions support the balanced development of nuclear power?

I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of the industry, and the trade unions recognise the contribution of nuclear power to a balanced energy supply. I hope that he and other hon. Members will carefully study the report. It is difficult to draw distinctions between snapshot, historical and whole new lifetime accounting costs, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise. When the hon. Gentleman has studied the report, I am sure that the advantages of diversified supply, as well as of new nuclear power stations, will be clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the oil developing companies with a view to discussing the exploration and development of onshore projects in the United Kingdom.

I have no plans to do so at present. My hon. Friend will be interested to note that since coming into office the Government have awarded 48 onshore production licences. That is 48 more than under the previous Administration.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. However, will he give me an assurance that, as in considerable areas on the north-east coast of Scotland and in many other parts of Scotland onshore drilling is possible and small oil companies are unable to afford the offshore costs of drilling, he will continue to support applications from small companies to do onshore drilling?

My hon. Friend is right. The costs of onshore drilling are considerably cheaper. That is why the onshore oil industry, which is flourishing now, is characterised by small companies. Long may it continue to be so.

Will the Secretary of State say how many of the licences applied for are in production? Will he give us an assurance about safety measures, because some onshore drilling has been extremely dangerous, particularly in Yorkshire?

The number of wells drilled onshore since the Government came to office is 39. Safety is of the utmost importance. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's interest in that subject, both onshore and offshore, but it is fair to say that the dangers offshore are considerably greater than those onshore. Nevertheless, a careful watch is kept to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken onshore as well as offshore.

As onshore and offshore production will peak in 1985 and then fall by 40 per cent. in the five years after that, does the Secretary of State realise that it is high time that we got on with developing the marginal fields?

I agree that the development of new fields is important. I am sure that in recent months the right hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the annex Bs granted to the Clyde field and the north Alwyn field. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the state of the oil market is such that at present the encouragement to develop new marginal fields is not as great as it was. Nevertheless, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that we go ahead with those fields.

Have there not been unfortunate delays in bringing onshore developments on stream? Is there not a case for my right hon. Friend's Department urging local authorities to act more quickly on planning applications from companies?

My hon. Friend is right. There have been cases in which there have been unconscionable delays by planning authorities. Planning permission from the local planning authority is essential if onshore drilling is to go ahead. It would be wholly wrong for the Government to bring pressure to bear on local authorities. It is for the local authorities to decide on proper planning and environmental criteria. However, there is scope for some of the less good to follow the example of the best.

Is not the best onshore site Wytch Farm? Has that not been developed by the imagination and skill of British Gas in partnership with British Petroleum? Are not the Government destroying the best partnership on the best onshore site?

There is no question of destruction. Wytch Farm is far and away the most prolific field so far discovered onshore in the United Kingdom. It is being developed by British Gas and BP. What the Government have decided and what Parliament approved is that the 50 per cent. share at present held by the state through British Gas should be transferred to the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total energy consumption in the United Kingdom expressed in million tonnes of coal equivalent in 1982; and how this compares with 1981 and 1980.

United Kingdom energy consumption was 328·7 million tonnes of coal equivalent in 1980, 317·1 million tonnes in 1981 and provisionally 311·2 million tonnes in 1982. While energy consumption was 5·3 per cent. lower than in 1980, GDP was 1·9 per cent. lower, indicating a substantial further improvement in energy efficiency.

In the light of that fall in demand, why are the Government hell-bent on depleting North sea oil resources as fast as possible, thereby wasting a valuable national asset?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Select Committee complimented the Government on their depletion policy for the North sea. The use of assets and their relationship to the market place is something that I know the hon. Gentleman might have difficulty in understanding fully in so far as it has been the most successful feature of energy conservation.

Will not the consumption of coal continue to decrease unless the National Union of Mineworkers takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Energy on pit closures, which showed that uneconomic pits, such as the one in south Wales, must be closed?

All hon. Members will recognise the importance of the all-party Select Committee which looked into the problem. As I have already said sufficiently during this Session, competitively priced coal and security of supplies are the key to the coal industry's retention of its present markets and winning new ones.

Dealing with the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about depletion policy, does the Minister think that it is wise for this country to be exporting 60 per cent. of its North sea oil production—a net figure of 30 per cent. after imports are taken into account? Is it not unwise to export so much oil when there is a falling price, or do the Government have to pay such a high bill for the unemployment that they have created and the tax cuts that they propose to make that they have no depletion policy whatsoever?

The official Opposition show an extraordinary inability to understand markets. If the oil price had been going up we should have been accused of not conserving the oil to retain its enhanced value for future generations. In all other production and industrial areas the official Opposition are asking for increased exports rather than the reverse.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will, in conjunction with the chairmen of the fuel boards, now consider arrangements whereby those on low incomes, including the retired, would be able to pay a reduced amount for fuel during the winter months.

The Government are spending around £325 million this year in direct assistance with fuel bills for those most in need.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous difficulties faced by many people on low incomes, particularly the retired, in trying to meet their fuel bills during the winter months? Will the Minister and the Secretary of State bear in mind that there are 750,000 pensioners who, because of their low income, receive rent and rate rebates, but no supplementary benefit, and do not get a penny in assistance for fuel purposes during the winter months or, indeed, at any other time? Why should they have to face the misery of the winter months without any help from the Government?

The hon. Gentleman is not being completely fair in his comments, and I am sure that he would wish to be.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how energy prices paid by British industry compare with prices paid by industry in the rest of the Common Market.

A recent study by the CBI shows that industrial energy prices in the United Kingdom in general compare well with those in the rest of the European Community.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief answer, which seems to have been based on exchange rate changes, the fall in oil duty and the actions of the Government. Does he accept that the CBI report drew attention to the lack of competitiveness of British industry as a result of the heavy fuel oil duty that it has to pay compared with our partners in the Community?

It is possible to give one particular item, such as the heavy fuel oil duty, where the price paid in the United Kingdom, inclusive of tax, is higher than the average in the European Community. On the other hand, in respect of foundry coke we are in line with or cheaper than other countries. Interruptible gas here is cheaper than in other countries of the European Community. It is necessary to take these matters in the round, rather than to look at individual items—particularly fuel oil, which is not the most important element in industrial energy costs.

Does the Secretary of State realise that, while he is giving complacent answers, the paper and board industry is declining fast because of competition from west European and Scandinavian countries, which have subsidised energy supplies?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I know that the paper and board industry is going through many difficulties at the present time. I have had discussions with a number of representatives of that industry. Those difficulties are by no means solely or even mainly due to energy costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present position with regard to the review of the electricity bulk supply tariff.

My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State commissioned a review of the bulk supply tariff in 1980. After detailed consideration of this, my right hon. Friend has agreed with the electricity supply industry that there will be no increase in the average of electricity prices this year.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in any definition under the bulk supply tariff, consideration will be given to defining industries, such as the paper and board industry, with a load factor of about 50 or 60 per cent.?

I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance, but I shall look at the matter. He will be aware that it is only in the area of 80 per cent. or above that the CBI notices disparities. Most of the paper and board industry is below 60 per cent.

Will the Minister look at the public and private sectors of the remaining steel industry where steel is made by the electric arc furnace method? That process is extremely expensive. Will the Minister note that Italy, which is not self-sufficient in energy, is able to provide electricity for arc furnaces at much lower prices than we are?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is the height of impudence for the official Opposition, when talking about industrial electricity prices, let alone gas prices, not to remember their record. From 1974 to 1979 industrial electricity prices went up by 115 per cent. Since the Conservative Government have been in office industrial electricity prices have gone up by 45 per cent. Industrial gas prices went up by 288 per cent. while the Labour Government were in office. They have gone up by 76 per cent. in our period of office. Those are the realities that have produced the industrial difficulties that we face.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of Britoil to discuss the development of marginal fields.

I frequently meet the chairmen of private sector oil companies, and development of marginal fields has from time to time been discussed.

In view of the Secretary of State's announcement today that he is disposed to encourage the speedy promotion and development of marginal fields, may I take it that a more sympathetic and considerate fiscal regime—it has been changed five times since the Government came to office—will be included in the Budget to encourage oil companies and their chairmen, including the chairman of Britoil, to bring forward urgent proposals to maintain national self-sufficiency in five years' time?

The right hon. Gentleman, who has done my job, knows that comments on Budget matters are taboo at this stage of a Parliament. Oil companies have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall have to wait and see whether they bear fruit.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss the taxation of North sea oil with the Chancellor, because if it is set too high it could affect investment in marginal and new fields?

I assure my hon. Friend that such matters have been discussed on a number of occasions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman note the relationship between the development of marginal fields and depletion policy? Does he agree that we must be anxious about the fact that in the North sea the bigger and better fields are being developed apace? Therefore, we need an incentive, fiscal or otherwise, to get the marginal fields appraised so that we can achieve security of supply as far into the future as possible.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We accept that it is important that marginal fields are developed. On the other hand, I remind him that the Select Committee on Energy has endorsed the Government's depletion policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large drop in oil prices would make some of the existing North sea fields marginal and make most of the new developments completely uneconomic? As we are a major producer and exporter, is it not in our interests to cooperate with other producers to see that the free market is orderly and does not become a complete shambles?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I assure him that the Government are looking at every possible way of ensuring that marginal fields are developed.

Bearing in mind that it has been known for many years that there would be a fall in British oil production from about 1985 onwards, why have the Government done almost nothing for four years to assist marginal field development and still do not seem to know what to do as they enter their fifth year in office?

The Government followed the marginal fields policy that they inherited from the Labour Government. Perhaps we should not have accepted it so willingly and should have reconsidered it earlier. The tax changes were fully supported by Labour Members, although it seems that some have been having second thoughts in recent weeks and months.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the appointment of a new chairman of the National Coal Board.

I am not yet ready to do so.

As newspapers are full of reports that Mr. MacGregor, the retiring chairman of the BSC, is to be appointed chairman of the NCB, when are we to receive confirmation of those reports, which are causing great anxiety in the coalfields? Will the Secretary of State have a tripartite meeting with the unions and the new chairman, or even the existing chairman, to deal with the problem that is developing in the industry because of the failure of investment in the south Wales coalfield?

There has been no failure of investment in the south Wales coalfield. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, there is not only substantial investment, but even larger subsidies to keep open uneconomic pits. One way and another, there is a very substantial investment indeed in the south Wales coalfield. It is natural that the NCB should be looking for ways of staunching the loss, which is what it is doing, for the benefit of the industry as a whole. The appointment of the present chairman of the NCB, Mr. Norman Siddall, does not end until 3 July, and I congratulate him on the first-class job that he has done since he took office and continues to do.

As this is, by common assent, an election year, does the right hon. Gentleman ageee that it would be highly improper to appoint a new chairman of the NCB, particularly if it is to be someone of the ilk of Mr. MacGregor?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that neither I nor the Government will do anything improper. I note his assurance that this is an election year, but whether he is in a position to give that assurance is another matter.

As neither the production targets nor the pit closure targets set out in the original "Plan for Coal" have been achieved, will my right hon. Friend ask the new chairman of the NCB to look carefully at the situation and to draw up more realistic targets for the future?

I am sure that the new chairman, whoever he may be—my concern is simply to get the best man for the job—will look at these matters very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the percentage increase in the cost of producing coal per tonne since May 1979; and how this compares with the percentage increase in overall industrial costs over the same period.

The percentage increase in the cost per tonne of producing coal, excluding social costs, between 1978–79 and 1981–82 was 59·9 per cent. In the same period the wholesale price index for output increased by 44·8 per cent.

Is that not a most disturbing figure, showing that the artificially high price of coal is adding unreasonably to other industrial costs? Are not the Government therefore absolutely right to demand that the coal industry should be viable and competitive and not depend on high subsidies and artificially high prices?

No one who wishes to see our coal industry succeed welcomes the increased costs to which I have had to refer. Equally, I am sure that everyone hopes that the coal industry will serve not just customers using electricity, 82 per cent. of which is coal generated, but the miners themselves and their wish to have secure jobs in the future by containing costs and ensuring security of supply for the industry.

If the Government are so keen on lower costs and higher productivity in the coal industry, why did they delay and obstruct new low-cost developments in the vale of Belvoir?

The Government in no way wish to delay attempts by other Departments and other interests to ensure that environmental as well as economic considerations are properly taken into account in coal development. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the massive increase in new low-cost capacity since "Plan for Coal". I am sure that he will be pleased to know that the Selby coalfield project, begun by the Labour Government, will shortly be coming on stream.

asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements exist to co-ordinate the dissemination of information about the European Community between Her Majesty's Government and the European assembly.

None.

As the people of Britain, particularly those in the schools, colleges and universities—and also the newspapers—are already snowed under by a vast quantity of free, glossy material coming from the Commission, the assembly, the European Democrats, and the Government, telling us what a splendid thing the Common Market is, and as most of it consists of propaganda and not information, is there nothing that the Lord President can do to stop the assembly spending another £25 million of taxpayers' money on a further pointless propaganda drive?

The answer must be no. The propaganda drive—if that is what it is—does not seem to be particularly successful.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that up to now the propaganda has not been particularly successful? Will he tell the House where propaganda begins and information ends? We are now getting from the Government pamphlets which are straight Tory propaganda in support of the European Community. At the same time we are getting material supplied by Mr. Gaston Thorn, which is also propaganda, with very little information in it.

I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination Mr. Gaston Thorn can be considered to be a propagandist for either the Tory party or the British Government.

Will the Lord President assure the House that by no sleight of hand of co-ordination will he conceal from the British people the self-interested attitude of the Conservative Government in refusing to introduce proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament?

I am not sure that that arises from the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), but the topic is one that I shall be happy to debate with the hon. Gentleman whenever the occasion arises.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that even those of us who champion the right of the European Parliament to carry out its proper functions, and urge the provision of facilities to its Members to enable it to do so, would find it intolerable if that Parliament sought to usurp the functions of this House, or if Members of that Parliament, by stealth or by the use of lavish European funds, sought to usurp the seats of hon. Members of this House?

I think that my hon. Friend's remarks strike a chord across a very wide spectrum of opinion.

asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects the Top Salaries Review Body to report on the remuneration of hon. Members and their staff.

The review body expects to submit its report on parliamentary pay and allowances to the Prime Minister in about two months' time.

Will the Lord President give us an assurance that the review body will carefully consider the problems of the staff of hon. Members as well as the remuneration of hon. Members themselves? Will the Lord President also give us an assurance that, when the report is presented, it will be acted upon promptly?

Staff for hon. Members were singled out in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to Lord Plowden requesting his further assistance. Once the report has been received I would expect it to be considered by Parliament.

Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that salaries and remuneration for the next Parliament are decided by Members of this Parliament before a general election, so that Members of the next Parliament are not put in the embarrassing situation of again having to review and decide on their own salaries?

That case was argued when we debated these matters previously. I hope that we shall be able to abide by the arguments set out then.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members admire the thorough way in which the Top Salaries Review Body is conducting its investigation? Does not the fact that it is an independent body make it essential that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said, the recommendations are implemented quickly?

I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says with the authority of being chairman of the PLP. Obviously I cannot give an undertaking about the speed with which the report will be debated, but I am sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

As the recommendations of the review body are seldom, if ever, adhered to, is there any point in having the body?

On balance, yes.

Will the Leader of the House acquaint the Prime Minister of the significance and urgency that severence pay may assume immediately before the next general election?

More urgent for some than for others, I suspect. I am certain that Lord Plowden will have received a range of representations on the issue, and his comments are eagerly awaited.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to establish an Ulster Grand Committee.

I have no plans to do so.

Has my right hon. Friend observed the state of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Does he not think that the interests of the United Kingdom would be better served if specific Northern Ireland legislation were included in general United Kingdom legislation and there were an appropriate adjustment of our Committee system, so that Northern Ireland could be treated as, say, Scotland and Wales are treated?

I note with respect the case that my hon. Friend argues. It is probably too early to come to a definitive judgment on the value of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but if it were decided that we wanted to improve our Committee structure, I should have thought that there would at least be a case for considering alterations to the Northern Ireland Committee rather than for setting up a new Committee.