asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the National Nuclear Corporation and the generating boards concerning the development of the fast breeder reactor; and if he will make a statement.

I have recently received advice from the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, on behalf of the various interested parties, and I am considering it. I will make a statement at the appropriate time.

In view of the considerable public and parliamentary interest in this issue, will the Minister consider publishing the advice before the Government arrive at a conclusion so that Parliament can pronounce on the issues involved? Secondly, will the Minister state what alterations or reductions in the budget for the development of the fast reactor the Government have already announced?

I can give no undertaking on the first point. The advice that the Government have received is confidential. The precise level of funding is not yet settled. The Government remain committed, as I made quite clear in November, to a substantial development programme.

Can my hon. Friend throw any light on the apparent conflict of policy between the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party on the future of nuclear power? Will he confirm that all the latest evidence continues to show that if Britain's industrial costs are to be competitive with countries such as France, this country must continue with a nuclear power programme?

I am conscious of my hon. Friend's last point. The way in which the SDP reacts to the more dominant side of the alliance is shown by its antagonism to nuclear power, and it must sort itself out on that issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring in legislation to establish a public corporation charged with the duty of constructing a Severn barrage for the generation of electricity on the lines set out in the Bondi report, with power to raise capital from public and private sources and a duty to conserve the environment and advance the amenity of the area.

I shall very shortly announce the Government's decision on the recommendations of Sir Hermann Bondi's committee.

Is it not a fact that the Bondi committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member, reported more than two years ago, that the House has been repeatedly promised a statement, and that the difficulty seems to be finance? Are not my suggestions useful and constructive?

I accept that the hon. Gentleman made his suggestions with the best intentions. He will be aware that considerable consultation has taken place. I assure him that he will not have to wait much longer for a statement.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he has examined all possible schemes for a Severn barrage, because there are other, smaller schemes, which are therefore more viable and better able to be financed by the private sector?

I appreciate the amount of local interest in this and other schemes. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have been considering a wide range committee's report. They include some interesting proposals from private sector financial interests on which several discussions have taken place.

Is the Minister aware that the constant delay in a decision on the barrage is causing other decisions to be delayed? The important issue of a second crossing for the Severn is of great concern to both sides of the channel, and that will be affected by the decision made on the barrage. I hope that the Minister will come to the House very soon with an announcement.

I can only reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), that a statement will be made in the near future.

Does the Minister agree that there has been inordinate delay over this scheme? Would it not be better to push the scheme ahead, as it would provide 8,000MW of electricity at relatively low cost, instead of proceeding with the highly expensive pressurised water reactor?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that the barrage would make a limited contribution to the base load capacity, equivalent to about one nuclear power station of perhaps 1GW, because tidal flows do not coincide with peak demand. The main benefit would be in the saving of fossil fuel.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on North sea oil prices and their impact upon the British National Oil Corporation finances.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on British oil pricing policy in the light of the recent Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries meeting in London.

North sea oil prices are determined by the market, as indeed they always have been. BNOC's financial position depends on trading conditions, not on the absolute price of oil.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the price of North sea oil is probably the most important economic factor in this country at present, and that he has either been silent on the subject or his statements have been as opaque as the one that we have just heard? Should not the Government announce their policy on the price at which they want North sea oil to be sold? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that by breaking BNOC into Britoil and the BNOC trading arm he will land the latter with millions of pounds of losses, which will not be compensated for by profits from the production side?

The separation of the former BNOC into two parts makes no difference to the activities or finances of the trading side. If the trading side makes losses there are provisions under section 6 of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act—as the right hon. Gentleman should be aware—for grants to be paid to make them good. It would be absurd for the Government to declare the price at which they would like oil to stand, and it would have no effect. BNOC seeks to sell its oil in the market place in a way that is conducive to the greatest stability.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a moderate fall in world oil prices would be beneficial to the United Kingdom's economy as we export so much of our industrial output? Is not the real lesson of the past decade that the erratic and dramatic changes in oil prices by the OPEC countries are damaging to world trade, and thus not only to every other country but to the OPEC countries themselves?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The existence of a cartel led to a more dramatic rise than would otherwise have occurred. We are now in a phase of adjustment because market forces have prevailed, as they always do. I agree that the gradual fall that has occurred has benefited both us and the world and that an exaggerated fall would be undesirable for the reasons that my hon. Friend has stated. My hon. Friend is also right to imply that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) was quite incorrect to suggest that the price of North sea oil is the biggest single factor determining the health of the British economy. That is just not so. The total value of North sea oil is only 5 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Is BNOC free to determine its own pricing policy? If it is not free to do so, is it not high time that Britain held conversations with the Nigerian Government so that we do not witness a very damaging trade war between Nigeria and Britain on the subject of light oil?

I have no particular wish to see a trade war with any country, but the sequence of events was that when BNOC proposed a $3 fall in its price for North sea oil, the immediate response was a $5·50 drop by the Nigerians.

If the Secretary of State feels that pricing should be left entirely to the market, why did he call in oil companies to discuss the subject, or were they merely discussing the weather or some other issue? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if the price of oil plummeted he would stand back and do nothing about it?

Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not profess to know all the answers and I find it helpful to discuss these matters with the oil companies and, indeed, with BNOC.

What is the price of North sea Brent oil? Is it the $30·50, which has not as yet been accepted, $29·or $29·50? We do not know. If the differentials have fallen well out of alignment, should not my right hon. Friend now recommend a correction.

It is not for me to recommend anything, but it is for BNOC to sell its oil at the best price that it can obtain in the market place. Some time ago it proposed a price of $30·50 a barrel, which some companies have accepted and others have not.

How would BNOC's finances look if the price of North sea oil fell to $24 or $25 a barrel? What losses would the Secretary of State anticipate for BNOC? How many representatives from different OPEC countries did the Secretary of State meet? Indeed, will he confirm that he met the representatives of five OPEC countries during those discussions? What exactly did he say to them about the international price of oil?

I pointed out in my original answer, which was by no means opaque, that it is not the absolute price of oil that determines the profits or losses of the trading organisation BNOC, but conditions in the market place, margins and so on. I cannot remember the precise number of OPEC oil Ministers that I met, but I certainly had discussions with them individually, and they were confidential.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much United Kingdom coal was sold in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office told the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on 4 February 1983, deliveries of National Coal Board coal, including smokeless fuels, into Northern Ireland during 1982 were some 1·5 million tonnes.

Does the Minister accept that, in view of the Government's rather unhelpful policies, there is considerable alarm in the industry at the prospect of a further contraction in the coal market? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there may be a case for some sort of subsidy for the coal, because, after all, the Government's theoretical policy is to increase coal burn in the industrial and domestic sectors?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to get the facts right. Burn has, of course, increased. The hon. Gentleman will obviously be aware that the Government's policy has ensured that the coal industry not only retains existing markets but wins new ones because of its price competitiveness. That is the long-term interest of further coal sales in addition to the 1·5 million tonnes that are now sold to Northern Ireland.

Is the Minister aware that he misread the question and that there is a very large quantity of United Kingdom coal beneath the ground in Northern Ireland, as well as in Cannock? Will he suggest to his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office that the time is coming when a statement of the Government's position will be necessary on the exploitation of the large deposits, which have now been proved?

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did not misread the question. The details are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the deposits in question are lignite, which under the Coal Industry Act are not defined as coal and are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable and growing anxiety among the consumers of British coal that the coal industry is not fulfilling its side of the bargain in "Plan for Coal", both in respect of the slow progress being made in phasing out uneconomic coal mines and in its inability to improve productivity?

My hon Friend is, of course, right. Governments of both parties have maintained the pattern of long-term investment in the coal industry. It is sad that the industry's productivity record has not been maintained in accordance with "Plan for Coal". Equally, uneconomic capacity has not decreased, contrary to what was envisaged in "Plan for Coal". Those of us who wish to see the coal industry succeed must deplore that fact and hope that it will be sorted out.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure on advertising by the British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry in the last year for which figures are available.

I am informed by the industries that in 1981–82 advertising expenditure was £22 million by the electricity industry and £23 million by the gas industry.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that that means that every gas consumer will be paying at last £2 a year for advertising costs and a similar sum in respect of electricity advertising and that those boards will be competing against each other? When will my hon. Friend take action with the boards to ensure that the costs are reduced?

I am concerned at the level of expenditure and I have asked the British Gas Corporation to consider ways of reducing it. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Earl of Avon, will be discussing the matter with the new chairman of the Electricity Council at the earliest opportunity.

Does the Minister agree that if these bodies did not spend quite so much on advertising the electricity supply industry, in particular, would not need to close showrooms in small towns such as Newton-le-Willows in an effort to save money?

The Office of Fair Trading report in April 1982 pointed out that over four years, 1977–78 to 1980–81, the LEB spent more on advertising appliances, as a percentage of turnover, than did other groups of retailers.

Would not that combined figure of £55 million be much better spent on the promotion of energy conservation packages by the industries concerned?

Perhaps I should correct my hon. Friend. The total was £45 million. What my hon. Friend says highlights the matter and shows that there is room for improvement on the part of both industries for economies in advertising.

Will the Minister reflect on how ironic it is that the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) should complain about advertising and competition only when they occur in the public sector, when we hear so frequently about the virtues of both those forces wherever they appear in the private sector?

I do not think that it is at all surprising. My hon. Friend is quite correct, and I do not believe that the two can be compared in scale.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to bring electricity prices for process industries into line with those charged in Italy, France and Germany.

The recent study by the CBI on international energy prices shows that our electricity tariffs to the process industries are broadly in line with the European average.

While the Secretary of State may claim that, does he agree that representations have been made to him by the process industries, and in particular by the paper industry, all of which feel that they are at a grave disadvantage on energy prices? Will he re-examine the matter to see whether those industries can be placed in a more competitive position?

The figures in the study to which I referred are not my figures. The study was headed by the CBI. Of course I receive representations from time to time, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures that I quoted are correct.

As my right hon. Friend will have had contact with Mr. MacGregor, as chairman of British Steel, is he aware that electric steel melting is contracting rapidly because it uses electricity generated from coal-fired power stations, which is far more expensive than that used by competitors elsewhere in Europe and the world?

I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in and concern for the steel industry over many years, particularly the electric arc section of the industry. However, perhaps he has not fully taken into account the change in comparative prices that has occurred as a result of the appreciation of the deutschmark and the depreciation of sterling in recent weeks and months?

Is the Secretary of State aware of the statement that has been put out by his Department that this problem had gone away? As it clearly has not gone away from the steel industry, the chemical, the textile, and the paper mill industries, will he now call an urgent meeting of all the parties in an effort to resolve the argument?

I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and with representatives of all those industries some weeks ago. I am well aware of what they said and of the current situation. Of course, many things do not go away, including the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Secretary of the State accept that the promised upturn of manufacturing and process industries is unlikely to come about when so many industrialists, such as those who are desperate to make progress in the west midlands, feel that they are hampered by the Government's continuing neglect of their problems?

Those problems are not neglected. Through the contracted-consumer load scheme, and in other ways, we have given £100 million a year towards the reduction of electricity prices to those industries. I should add that German prices are now higher than those of the United Kingdom for all industrial consumers, except for a very tiny minority.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board regarding public investment in the coal industry.

My right hon. Friend and I meet Mr. Siddall regularly to discuss all aspects of the board's activities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Siddall and his successor, whoever he may be, can best secure jobs for coal miners and a good standard of living for those who work in the industry by concentrating resources on those pits that have a bright future, such as the Point of Ayr pit in my constituency.

My hon. Friend is of course right. I remember visiting the Point of Ayr colliery, and when I came up from underground I remember the meeting that I held with him, the trade union representatives and the management. It is a perfect example of a pit with a good long-term future. I gather that the output per man shift there is over 3 tonnes. A sizeable investment programme of over £11 million is now in process. It is a perfect illustration of investment from which the industry will benefit.

In meeting the present chairman of the board, does the Minister agree that it would have been much more helpful if the Government's record had been better during the past four years? For example, they have sunk no new pits since they came to office. Secondly, would it not help, in answering his hon. Friend, if he were to mention that the burden of interest that the National Coal Board is now carrying on capital borrowing is becoming crippling?

The industry has welcomed the Government's massive commitment to enormous investment in the industry, despite the enormous losses. It is hard to reconcile that statement from the Opposition with companies which not only have losses but which cannot borrow from the taxpayer the kind of money that we are talking about. Many companies would be only too happy to have the privilege of paying interest on such money borrowed from the taxpayer at very advantageous rates.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Coal Board has a great future, provided that the industry is efficient? Will he ensure that the new chairman of the NCB gets to grips with those parts of the industry that are a drain on public funds, so that the long-term jobs of people working in the industry are secured?

I hope that all of us wish for the coal industry to have a long-term successful future. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind if I add that in fact we were answering a question relating to the current chairman of the NCB, who is a very fine leader and has been seeking to put into practice the policies that the Government have been urging for the coal industry.

In view of the deep anxieties in the coalfields about the anticipated statement that Mr. MacGregor is to become the new chairman, when the statement is made today, will the Minister reassure coal areas that public investment and capacity are to be maintained and that there will be no rundown of the coal industry, as has happened in the steel industry in recent years?

I have much difficulty in reconciling that comment with the miners' ballot recently. The industry itself recognises that its future lies in producing a competitive product, with security of supply, to ensure that it keeps its current markets and wins new ones.

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

I ask the hon. Member to await the statement that I shall make later this afternoon, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is content to wait, I shall see that he is called early on the statement.

indicated assent.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of the percentage of future coal supplies to be derived from opencast mining.

As I told the hon. Member on 28 February this year, the Government have the question of future opencast output under review.

Does the Minister think that, with some 52 million tonnes of coal stocks on the ground, the time has come to reject all opencast applications? In particular, will he seriously consider rejecting the application in respect of Sudeley in Warwickshire, to which there is now growing local opposition from neighbouring residents, and which will delay industrial development and seriously affect hospital services, and when even the NCB itself has told me that it does not want the coal?

As I said, opencast output is under review. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that in the recommendations of the Commission on Energy and the Environment there was an association between the reduction in uneconomic capacity in deep-mined coal and a potential reduction in capacity for opencast. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Sudeley site, I hope that he will remember that the Conservative Warwickshire county council and the Nuneaton and Bedford Labour-controlled borough council have dropped their objections. If the remaining objections continue there will be a public inquiry, so I do not wish to comment further at this point.

Does the Minister agree that opencast mining was meant not as a substitute for deep coal mining but specifically to complement it? In view of that and the present large amount of unused coal, will the Minister consider revising downwards the opencast mining target of 50 million tonnes per year?

I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to remind the House that that target was established by the last Labour Government and that major profits come to the coal industry from that area. In addition, anthracite from South Wales, special coking coals from the north-east and opencast coal from other parts of Britain enable areas with higher chlorine content coal to ensure that the steam market is helped. That is an important part of our coal industry.

As successive Governments have always tried to limit the production of opencast coal mining, will the Minister give the assurance that the trailer of the expected appointment will not mean that because the individual mentioned had most of his experience in opencast mining in America we are about to see a big expansion of opencast coal mining in Britain? That is unacceptable.

I remind the House that it was the previous Government who said that they sought to increase opencast capacity by 50 per cent. from 10 million to 15 million tonnes. The Government have made it clear that the current level is under review and announcements will be made shortly on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make arrangements to meet the chairmen of the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board, and the British Gas Corporation to discuss future energy supplies for the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairmen from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

Instead of the Government fighting the British trade unions, should they not bring together the three chairmen of the energy industries and the trade unions to try to bring about greater harmony so that the nation can have greater production? Is the Minister aware that if Mr. MacGregor is appointed chairman of the coal mining industry it will be the most discouraging action that can be taken against the top men in the British mining industry? When will the Government show some common sense and ensure that we rely on our own instead of appointing outsiders at a tremendous cost to the country?

The Government have no desire to quarrel with any industry and they go out of their way to cooperate. If the Government received the same co-operation at every level matters would be much healthier. The hon. Gentleman will have to await my right hon. Friend's statement on the new chairman of the National Coal Board.

As the British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry had monopoly control of their industries in 1981–82, does my right hon. Friend agree that it was preposterous that they should have spent £45 million on advertising? Would not that money have been better spent on reducing standing charges, particularly for pensioners?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt effectively with standing charges and has made a substantial contribution towards the welfare of pensioners and the less fortunate in our society. I have already commented on the boards' advertising expenditure, but the raising of the matter again highlights the anxiety that is felt about it in the House.

Would it not be a good idea to bring those three distinguished gentlemen together to discuss an intelligent energy conservation programme, since most experts at the moment believe ours is in a shambles?

I do not think that all experts would agree with the hon. Gentleman. A substantial amount of energy conservation is being carried out and from time to time discussions take place with the chairmen of those boards that are directly responsible.

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairmen, will he also discuss prices? As well as the chairman of the British Steel Corporation being interested in electricity prices, all industries are interested in gas prices. Should they not come down in line with oil prices?

Gas prices are constantly being reviewed by the Government and the chairman of the British Gas Corporation. One should not assume automatically that the price of one fuel would come down because another has.

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

I shall do so when the current negotiations have been concluded.

Is it not an utter scandal that the Secretary of State and the Government are attempting to destroy the fine partnership between the British Gas Corporation the British Petroleum, which has developed the best offshore oilfield that we have? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the current negotiations, and in particular what part he has played in them? We have been told time after time that this is a commercial decision by the British Gas Corporation. Why have the right hon. Gentleman and his Department been having secret meetings with some of the bidders to control them so that they present an acceptable bid?

The principle of the matter has been debated in the House on several occasions. It has been voted on, Parliament has decided and it is now up to the British Gas Corporation to carry out the will of the House of Commons and Parliament. The British Gas Corporation sought my guidance on the bids that it received, and in formulating that guidance it was necessary for me to seek some elucidation of the bids.

This has been a very important revelation, because time after time Ministers have said that this is nothing to do with the Government, and everything to do with the British Gas Corporation. Which bidders has the right hon. Gentleman met? Did he ask the British Gas Corporation to meet the bidders, or did he seek to meet them in order to achieve an acceptable bid?

The British Gas Corporation is well aware of the part that I have played. It explicitly sought guidance from me about the bids that it received and I have acted in a wholly even-handed manner.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is well understood in the west midlands that the Government wish to dispose of Wytch Farm and to encourage exploration in the North sea, but that those who are dependent upon lower oil prices would not wish the Government to give the impression that they can influence the price of oil so as to keep it up and would much rather that the Government state more clearly that the price of oil is dependent upon market forces?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I answered question 3. If he had been, he would have heard me say precisely that. BNOC sells the oil that passes through its hands at the best prices that it can get in the market.

The Secretary of State made an interesting statement a few seconds ago. He said that he had been even-handed towards the bidders for Wytch Farm. Has the right hon. Gentleman met all the bidders?

I have met all the bidders whom the British Gas Corporation considered to be valid.

Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he has put no pressure on the British Gas Corporation to reduce its valuation of Wytch Farm? Can he assure us that the valuation is a proper one, given by a nationalised industry acting in the nation's interests? Whatever conversations the right hon. Gentleman has had with the bidders, can he say that in the last analysis he cannot refuse British Petroleum if it wishes to buy Wytch Farm?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that BP has a matching right. The only independent valuation of which I am aware is that produced last month by the distinguished oil analyst, Wood Mackenzie and Company, which put a value of between £141 million and £213 million on the BGC's interest.

Has not the British Gas Corporation been seeking deliberately to try to frustrate the will of Parliament, which was clearly that that share should be sold? It is not quite unreasonable for it to have behaved as it has in artificially inflating the value of its stake in Wytch Farm.

My hon. Friend has a good point. As I said earlier, Parliament has decided the matter and it is up to the British Gas Corporation to carry forward the decision expeditiously.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the outrageous and disgraceful statement by the Secretary of State, I give notice that I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I must ask hon. Members to use the usual formula when giving notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many North sea fields in the 50 million to 150 million barrel recoverable reserve range he now expects to be developed in the next five to 10 years.

The oil companies have already responded positively to the fiscal incentives contained in the Budget. The precise rate of development of new oil and gas fields, however, is a matter for their technical and commercial judgment.

Does the Minister of State accept that that is too much of a "hands off' answer to be acceptable to the House and to the country? Does he concede that substantial fiscal incentives are now given to develop these fields—

The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

I shall welcome it. Will the Minister use his office to ensure that the equipment used in the fields is built and produced in the United Kingdom?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who criticised the Government not long ago for not giving further incentives to the oil companies, cannot see his way to giving the incentives a warm and wholehearted welcome, unlike the oil companies, which have been most generous in their praise of the Government. The companies have expressed their appreciation and said that a real understanding of the industry's problems has been shown by the Government. They have suggested that it will encourage new exploration and development. I confirm that I shall do all that I can to ensure that Brtish industry is given full and fair opportunity to compete, as I have for the past four years.

Has my right hon. Friend notice that, despite the weakening oil prices, a number of oil companies have already accelerated their exploration and development programmes as a direct consequence of the Budget measures? Should not the Opposition welcome that instead of criticising it?

My hon. Friend is correct. He will not have missed the recent statement by Shell that the Shell-Esso group intends to invest between £700 million and £800 million per year in the North sea for the remainder of the decade.

What exactly is the Government's depletion policy? Do they intend to go on recklessly using this valuable national asset to cover up the deficiencies caused by their economic failure?

That is apart from the question, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman and draw his attention to the fact that the all-party Select Committee has greed with the Government's depletion policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with Ministers whose Governments are members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the past six weeks.

During the course of recent OPEC meetings in London I had a number of separate meetings with OPEC oil Ministers, at their request.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the Ministers was the Nigerian Minister? Will he accept that if there is an oil price war between Nigeria and ourselves the British National Oil Corporation will be seriously hurt? Is it not in Britain's and Nigeria's interests that we avoid such a conflict?

I sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned about the unterests of Nigeria than the interests of Britain, but I am sure that that is due to the infortunate phrasing of his question. As I made clear in answer to art earlier question, Britain has no interest in an exaggerated fall in oil prices and will do what it can, within the confines of market forces, to introduce a degree of stability into the market place.

As the Secretary of State is prepared to follow market forces, will he give a specific directive to the BNOC under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act to do precisely that and to follow the market price downwards so that the differentials are corrected and so that people buy North sea oil and do not go to Nigeria for oil?

I see no cause for a directive. BNOC has some highly skilled traders who have been selling North sea output with skill during difficult times. I regret that I forget the second part of ray hon. Friend's question.

To enhance the stability to which the Secretary of State referred, can he confirm that there will be no increase in the amount of oil exported from British oilfields in the next 12 to 18 months? Would that not be a remarkably sensibile gesture for him to make?

The amount of oil produced in the North sea depends on the companies. My best guess is that, looking at the profiles of individual fields, North sea production this year will be about the same as last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has seen a copy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on its investigation of the coal mining industry.

Yes.

As the Minister has now seen the report, will he make it available to the National Coal Board and the mining trade unions? When will it be made available to hon. Members? Will he arrange for a debate on the report?

I shall try to answer all those questions. The report and its publication are matters for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The extent of the availability of reports to parties mentioned in them is covered by section 17(2) of the Competition Act 1980. It will be made available in advance to those mentioned in it.

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

I should like to see early progress on a Community coal strategy.

Are our European partners expected to shoulder the losses of the British coal industry?

No. I hope that within the European coal policy we can expect a balanced package of aid for economic coal production and use. Clearly our coal industry recognises the importance of investment in economic development and restructuring to cover the problems of our older, historic coal industry. There will be advantages not only for us but for the European coal policy's attempt to reduce dependency on coal.

Would it not be appropriate to tell the House that the coal produced in Britain is cheaper than the coal produced in western Europe?

That is certainly true of deep coal mining. The United Kingdom produces the cheapest deep-mined coal in western Europe.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a European energy policy should cover all sources of energy? What progress is being made with an electricity grid across the Channel? What further consideration has he given to a European gas grid to join our gas pipeline to that of the remainder of western Europe?

Good progress is being made with the electricity grid across the Channel. I shall return later to my hon. Friend's point about a potential gas interconnection.

Will the Minister admit that the coal produced in Britain is cheaper because the subsidies that overseas countries give to their coal industries are far greater than the subsidies that Britain gives to its coal industry?

The hon. Gentleman must remember that investment in the future coal industry is running at triple the rate of comparable investment by the next substantial coal producer, West Germany, which produces about 90 million tonnes. The other relatively high support levels are for static and declining industries in France and Belgium, which I should not think the hon. Gentleman would want the British coal industry to emulate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make a statement on the results of the feasibility studies into the use of combined heat and power for district heating.

I shall make a statement when the Government have fully considered the consultants' report and the comments of interested parties.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in that statement the Government should give guidance on how district heating should be organised and financed, and especially on the role that the Government believe should be played by the electricity supply industry, local authorities and private industry?

I know of my hon. Friend's long history of support in this area. He will remember our detailed debate in Committee on the Energy Bill, when the nature and role of the electricity supply industry and the local authorities were debated. I am sure that he will wish to consider the matter further when we consider the report to the House.

As Edinburgh is the strongest candidate to be a lead city for a combined heat and power scheme, will the Minister assure the House that he will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before reaching a final decision?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned in Committee the rule and interest of Edinburgh in the scheme. Nine cities were studied for the report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is always involved in matters concerning Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many officials in his Department are concerned primarily with energy efficiency.

I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17 March 1983 to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey).

Will the officials in the Department of Energy consider working out an energy conservation scheme for industries such as the paper and board industry and other industries that are heavy users of energy?

Special treatment within the conservation scheme is subject to scrutiny by those who are examining the policy. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will certainly look carefully at the requirements of the various industries concerned with energy conservation.

As supply side energy schemes, such as the construction of the national grid in the 1930s, put hundreds of thousands of people back to work in Britain, why do not the Government adopt a demand side energy scheme based on a national programme of energy conservation, thereby putting 100,000 people back to work in the way put forward by the group of eight representing the construction industry in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy?

The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the potential for providing employment by the spending of similar amounts of money in other ways must always be considered. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion might not compare favourably with ideas in other areas.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for broadcasting the proceedings of the House and its Committees.

My responsibility is to ensure, as far as possible, that these arrangements reflect the wishes of the House. If any hon. Members are dissatisfied with them they should make their views known to the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.

Is the Lord President of the Council aware of the widespread dissatisfaction among hon. Members about broadcasting Parliament? Is he aware that it is regarded as trivial and frivolous and as providing no proper report of the proceedings of the House? Would it not be more satisfactory for the House itself to take control of the arrangements for broadcasting?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question must be yes. Any substantial change should probably take place at the beginning of a new Parliament rather than at the fag end of this one.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents find that coming to the Chamber and hearing from the Gallery what goes on in a three-dimensional manner is different from hearing the noise and row on a mono or stereo set, which does not give a true impression of what goes on in the Chamber? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that and ensure that, as far as possible, the public understand the difference between the radio broadcast and the live show?

I recognise that.

What special broadcasting arrangements will be made for tomorrow when the new Member for Darlington (Mr. O'Brien) takes his seat?

There will be no ganging up in applause.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when Parliament was held in the highest esteem and when Britain was at the height of its greatness there was no recording or reporting of the proceedings of the House?

I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes.

asked the Lord President of the Council if Her Majesty's Government are notified in advance by the European assembly and the European Community Commission of the information campaigns which they conduct in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The European assembly and the Commission are responsible for their own information programmes and are not required to consult member states about them.

Is it not outrageous and unreasonable that vast sums of taxpayers' money should be used for propaganda drives in Britain? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are about to have another £2 million propaganda drive with public funds, sponsored by Saatchi and Saatchi? Would it not be wise to ensure that the information put out at least confirms to the specific information given by Her Majesty's Government in answer to parliamentary questions?

The sums voted to that purpose are subject to monitoring by Community institutions. My hon. Friend should not be too worried that they are suborning the populace in relation to how they perceive the national interest of Britain relative to the Community.

Is the Leader of the House aware that even though we do not like the fact that the Community has large sums to spread propaganda, some of us have come to the conclusion that it is not likely to make much impact, no matter how much money it spends, because the assembly seems to spend its time deciding on the length, weight and size of gherkins, regarding that as important and taking away massive amounts of money from Britain and operating a tinpot agricultural policy that benefits the farmers and not the farm workers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Britain know that the Community has been an unmitigating disaster?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Both charity and prudence prevent me from commenting upon the merits of his argument.

As the turnout in the last European election was low, would it not make sense to provide more information about what the Community and the European Parliament do? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should not be party-political information, but information based on what the institutions themselves represent?

I understand that slightly more than £12.5 million has been devoted to that end. Therefore, my hon. Friend should feel a sense of satisfaction.

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.

The Services Committee has agreed a report on phase 1 of the development of the Bridge street site for parliamentary purposes. It is hoped that the report will be published before Easter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the possibility of a general election within the next few months will not in any way affect the work that will be done on the new office accommodation on that site? What progress is being made in making additional office accommodation for hon. Members available in the Palace of Westminster?

I can promise the publication of the report and, I hope, a debate shortly thereafter. I can promise absolutely nothing whatsoever about the date or outcome of the general election. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point about improving the office accommodation within the Palace of Westminster and write to him.

Does the Leader of the House accept that new Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the new hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. O'Brien) have the rnost urgent need for office accommodation? Would it be possible to have a temporary office for such Members so that they could spend at least the first few weeks with a desk and a telephone?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to temporary accommodation. I shall refer it to the appropriate members of the Services Committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I first entered the House all I had was a small locker? Since we have been given desks, my mail has increased, my work has increased, the votes in this place have increased, and I do not believe that the Government are under any more control now than they were then.

I cannot deny my hon. Friend his boyhood reminiscences. I am by no means sure that even were we to reverse the recent accommodation development we should necessarily reverse the burdens of our correspondence.

Will the Lord President confirm that the offer of £15 million by the Secretary of State for the Environment for the new accommodation still stands?

The Government's position on finance will be made clear at the time of the debate.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider ways of improving the working of Parliament to ensure more accountability of Ministers to the House.

I am always willing to consider proposals for strengthening ministerial accountability to Parliament.

If the Prime Minister insists upon using her patronage powers to give Cabinet posts to non-elected Members of the House of Lords, will the right hon. Gentleman make such Ministers accountable to the elected representatives of the people by making arrangements for them occasionally to be summoned to the Bar of the House to answer questions? In the recent Anderson Strathclyde scandal, was it not an absolute disgrace that Lord Cockfield was allowed to hide behind inaccurate press releases rather than explain his conduct to us?

I shall ignore and dismiss the hon. Gentleman's ungenerous references to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The hon. Gentleman is a little archaic in supposing that relationships between the two Houses of Parliament must be conducted at the Bar of the House. Select Committees of the House can invite those from another place to give evidence whenever they so wish.