asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to bring United Kingdom energy price levels into line with current levels in the European Community.

While particularly intensive energy users may experience disadvantage, the latest evidence shows that energy prices to United Kingdom industry continue to be generally in line with those of other EC member states.

I am glad that the Minister recognises that intensive energy users are at a disadvantage. I believe that that is a direct result of the Government's policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider more special arrangements and a more flexible tariff system to help industries, such as the pottery industry in my constituency, which are being discriminated against when compared with their European competitors?

I accept that there are some problems for energy-intensive industries. The CBI report on this matter shows that our prices generally are in line with those of the European Community. Action has been taken through schemes such as loan management. We shall watch the developments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Reed International, which has a large company within my constituency, believes that it faces a fuel oil tax of £1·5 million more than similar companies in the European Community? Is not the fuel oil tax putting such companies at a considerable disadvantage in terms of competitiveness?

I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that that tax has been frozen during the past three years. Independent reports show a balanced position.

Is the Minister aware that energy prices are relative to production costs and that in the European Community, Belgium—

Reading.

The hon. Gentleman is reading.

That is infantile. I am allowed to look at the figures. The hon. Lady ought to know better than to shout.

Order. I believe that the hon. Member realises that he is not in order. Will he proceed with his question?

I am trying to do so, Sir.

The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to read.

Order. Let us be fair to the hon. Member. He is relatively new to the House. The hon. Member should not read his question; he should paraphrase it.

Is the Minister aware that other EC countries subsidise coal to a much greater extent than Britain? Belgium, for example, provides production aid of £16 per tonne. That affects not only energy prices, but coal miners' jobs in my constituency. Will the Government subsidise our coal production at a rate similar to the highest in the EC?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that investment in the British coal industry is among the highest in Europe. He should consider that fact before making comparisons.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that standing charges are a substantial part of energy prices for the domestic user? Will he use his influence to ensure that these charges are kept down as much as possible to reduce the consequences of the recession on pensioners and the unemployed?

I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the former Secretary of State kept standing charges to a low level. A report shows that standing charges reflect the costs that they were meant to cover.

Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends are trying to bring to his attention special problems in key industries? As he has admitted the existence of those problems, will he review them and see what he can do to alleviate them?

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I was saying. Some of our energy industries — including electricity — operate operate management schemes which are helpful to users. I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that during 1983–84 electricity prices are being frozen and that gas contract prices have been frozen until the end of this year. I acknowledge the problem, and action has been taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department will study the potential for the production of methane gas from disused pits.

I understand that this potential is evaluated by the National Coal Board whenever it is known that a colliery is to cease production.

Is the Minister aware that great resources of methane gas exist in pits that have already been closed or about to be closed? Is he aware that that includes the Cordowan colliery in my constituency, which was supplying a local distillery and was, in time, to supply a local school? What is likely to happen to those natural resources?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that such arrangements must be made by the Coal Board and local suppliers under contract for methane gas. The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that when pits are closed, although there may be opportunities for the sale of methane, substantial costs are involved. The cost of keeping Cordowan open far outweigh the potential revenue from the sale of methane gas.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the methane gas supply plant which was a useful by-product of the international garden festival project in Liverpool? Is that not an interesting example of how the Government helped to produce that product? In view of the environmental as well as energy advantages for other cities with municipal rubbish tips, will my hon. Friend consult his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to see whether that example can be followed elsewhere?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comment on the importance of methane as a fuel. Methane has been used in a number of energy-saving experiments. An example is the London Brick Company of Peterborough, which uses the Bedfordshire refuse tips for fuelling methane in its own boilers.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

My right hon. Friend's next meeting with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation has not yet been arranged, nor the subject matter decided.

Will the Minister discuss with the chairman the safety of high pressure gas pipelines and in particular the case in my constituency, about which I have informed him, involving a pipeline which is only 18 inches below the ground and looks as if it never was laid to the regulation 3ft depth? Instead of trusting private contractors and private surveyors to check the laying of such pipelines, will the Minister send out Department inspectors to ensure that the specific pipeline is laid at its proper depth and to determine whether similar pipelines exist elsewhere?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, with his usual courtesy, informed me at the end of last week about the particular problem affecting one of his constituents. The problem is serious and causes anxiety. I shall do what I can. I understand that the chairman of the Scottish gas board has offered to appoint an independent arbitrator to try to settle the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his constituent that that is the best way to resolve the problem.

Will my hon. Friend have words with the British Gas Corporation and the Electricity Council about their undignified advertising slanging match which, instead of informing, is confusing the consumer and has cost £22 million in the last year? Can the Department of Energy move in as referee to stop the fight and produce independent estimates of the relative advantages of electricity and gas heating so that the consumer has an independent assessment of the differences?

I am sure that the chairmen of both industries will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Advertising is a matter for the commercial discretion of those who run the industries.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the BGC, will he discuss with him the recent speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in which he made a disastrous attack on the nationalised industries? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the excellent productivity record in the gas, electricity and coal industries refutes the Financial Secretary's allegations? Where does the Minister stand in relation to that speech?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read the speech, because I do not think that one should draw from it the conclusions that he drew. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the future of all the industries. We want to examine all ways of running them more efficiently.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the estimated maximum savings per year arising from the energy efficiency campaign announced by his Department.

It has been estimated that 20 per cent. of the nation's energy bill could be saved by cost-effective efficiency measures by the late 1990s. The aim of the campaign is to achieve this as soon as possible.

Bearing in mind the complaints by industry about the Government's failure to get the message across and the consequent failure by industry to apply for grants that it may need to fulfil the aims of the conservation campaign, will the Minister outline what steps he intends to take to publicise the campaign throughout the country?

As my right hon. Friend announced last week, an energy efficiency office has been established in my Department with the particular task of carrying the campaign forward. We do not intend the campaign to run only centrally. Ministers hope to visit cities and other centres throughout the United Kingdom in the next few months. We believe that enormous savings can be made. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Will my right hon. Friend set out the extent of the publicity that is planned through advertising on television and in newspapers?

I cannot give the detailed expenditure figures. However, every means possible will be used to bring the campaign home lo the public and industry. If savings of 20 per cent. at present prices can be achieved by the end of the 1990s, a potential saving of £7 billion a year is possible. That is a worthwhile prize to work for.

asked the Secretary o f State for Energy what proposals his Department has for a balanced fuels policy.

It remains the Government's aim that all economic forms of energy should be exploited, supplied and used efficiently.

Will the Minister disclose what role he sees the coal industry playing in any future balanced fuel programme? Will he also elevate the coal industry in his general accounting procedures so that it can play a truly effective role?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government's aim is to ensure that the coal industry plays a major and viable part in our energy policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is essential, in that achievement, to produce coal at a p ice at which the market is willing to buy.

The Minister believes in a market and balanced energy policy. Has he examined the figures in today's Glasgow Herald which show that the South of Scotland Electricity Board will be buying about 4 million tonnes of coal from the National Coal Board next year compared with about 8 million tonnes three years ago? Does the Minister realise that if that continues a catastrophic loss of jobs, beyond the industry's current position, will occur? Does he accept his responsibility for trying to retain a share of the coal industry for Scotland?

I am aware of the position. I understand that a large portion of the problem is due to the Peterhead power station now using natural gas liquid in addition to coal. I understand that that is for a temporary period. Overall, the loss to the Coal Board in Scotland is about 25 per cent. of the volume compared with last year. We must remember that there has been a large drop in demand.

If the Government are committed to a balanced fuel policy, will the Minister prove that commitment by reversing the CEGB's decision not to use the fifth unit at the Isle of Grain oil-fired power station, which is being built by one of our best teams of construction workers?

It is for the CEGB to determine where its major capital investments should be realised.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take action to increase the use of coal in industry.

The best way to increase the markets for coal is for those concerned in the industry to be able to assure customers of reliable supplies at competitive prices.

What pressure is the Minister putting on the Department of Trade and Industry to make the boiler conversion scheme more effective? Does he agree that if the grant were increased from 25 per cent., if the scheme were extended beyond this year and, above all, if the scheme were made available to the whole of the public sector, a more significant contribution would be made towards making the coal industry viable?

I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is right to remind the House that the conversion scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I accept that in the measurement of the scheme to date the Coal Board has identified about 2 million tonnes of additional coal burn. It is by measures such as these that we can expand markets. My right hon. Friend is having discussions to see whether it is possible to extend the scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as more than £2 million a day has been spent by the Conservative Government on the coal industry since 1979, that represents a real commitment to the future of that industry?

I welcome my hon. Friend's point. It is a fact, that with investment at little short of £800 million per annum, this country has invested enormously in the coal industry. With the National Coal Board, we seek to ensure that that investment produces profitable coal.

If I understood correctly the Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman supports the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman supports the privatisation of the mining industry? If so, what part of that privatisation, if it comes about, will increase the amount of coal used by industry?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his answer on 4 July that there were no plans to consider the sale of pits. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the contents of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he will see that it refers primarily to the opportunities for disposal, and that is what the board is doing in relation to its ancillary companies, some of which have been sold to the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for energy if he will give estimates for the current level of production of oil and gas for the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf.

Provisional figures indicate that oil production from the United Kingdom continental shelf amounted to 9·8 million tonnes in September. Natural gas production was 2·2 billion cubic metres in the five weeks to 2 October.

Will the Minister comment on the view that our production of 2·4 million barrels of oil a day, which is extremely high in relation to what was apparently agreed between the Government and OPEC, is disturbing to the OPEC nations? They cannot understand why they should curtail production to keep the oil price firm while we open the valves and produce at an exceptionally high level, in view of our domestic requirements?

I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is the same as my own. The United Kingdom, which has given no undertaking on this matter, has made it clear that at least up to the end of 1984 there will be no restriction on production on the continental shelf. Although our figures are an improvement on last year's production, they were what we predicted in the Brown Book. The OPEC countries are also producing above their quotas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent tax reforms for the North sea oil companies will be of great help, particularly to the small fields on which so much of our future production depends? Is there any evidence yet that these reforms have had any effect?

My hon. Friend is right, as always. There are signs of the effects of this reform. First, there is greater interest among businesses in the oil supply industry, and, secondly, more exploration and appraisal wells were being drilled in the North sea up to the end of September than in any year up to 1975, the peak year.

After a weekend in which the high cost in life that can occur in getting both gas and oil from the North sea has become clear, will the Minister assure us that events such as those witnessed last weekend are highly unlikely to take place in the British sector of the North sea? Will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the safety regulations for diving bells and compression units?

I join the hon. Gentleman in his concern over what happened in the Norwegian sector of the North sea last weekend. I extend my sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives, especially as there were some British citizens on that vessel. Until we know the results of the inquiry that the Norwegian Government are carrying out, it is too early for any lessons to be learnt. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I keep in close touch with my Norwegian counterpart. If there are lessons to be drawn from this event, we shall take note of them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state the total increase in the price of domestic gas since May 1979.

The average price paid by a typical domestic gas consumer in the hon. Member's constituency has increased by 23·22p per therm since May 1979.

I wanted the figure for the national increase. Is the Minister aware of the considerable hardship caused to many people, including my constituents, as a result of the increases in gas prices, which, since May 1979, have more than doubled in the retail prices index? Is the Minister also aware that many people on low incomes, but not necessarily receiving supplementary benefit, do not receive any assistance towards their fuel bills? Will there not be tremendous hardship this coming winter for many people because of the increases in gas prices?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for those who are less well off, but, to put it into perspective, it is worth reflecting that in real terms gas prices are the same today as they were in 1970. If we are to help those who are less well off, it is better to direct the help in their direction. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that 2.25 million people are benefiting from Government schemes and that some £350 million a year is being spent on these schemes. Later this month, the heating addition is to go up. The Government are not only concerned, but are taking action.

Is it not inevitable, because the British Gas Corporation proposes to price gas on historic costs rather than on the marginal costs of buying gas, that there will have to be further increases in domestic gas prices?

The corporation has made announcements about what might be necessary, but at this stage no decisions about increases this year have yet been taken.

Does the Minister acknowledge that over the past four or five years the price of gas has been determined not by market forces but by direct Government intervention? Will the Government continue this policy or will the BGC be allowed to determine the price in view of its own needs, particularly in the face of plans to privatise the corporation?

I should be interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on that matter and whether he feels that a rational pricing policy should be followed to make the best use of these resources. That has been the purpose of our policy over the past three years. That period of adjustment has now been completed.

In each of the past three years have not the Government imposed a 10 per cent. increase above the rate of inflation? Is that Government policy?

As I made clear in another answer, the increase of 10 per cent. a year over three years has been debated in the House on many occasions. It was done to achieve a more rational and sensible gas policy, particularly for the exploitation of our resources in the North sea. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe in a successful exploitation and development policy, I hope that he will tell the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what were the total energy savings by sector attributable to energy conservation policy for each year from 1979 to the latest available date.

I have arranged for information to be published in the Official Report. In overall terms, between 1979 and 1982 final energy consumption fell by 12 per cent. About a third of this reduction was due mainly to economic pricing and energy efficiency measures.

I welcome that answer and look forward to reading the details in the Official Report. Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the past reliance upon realistic economic pricing, as part of Government energy consevation policy was too heavy, and that perhaps it might be helpful in future to make it clear that both grants and incentives have equally important parts to play?

That is why we have set up the energy efficiency office and are embarking on a campaign of energy conservation. Already, through the energy conservation demonstration programme and the energy conservation scheme, a number of positive things are being done. I agree with my hon. Friend that this matter requires more drive, and we are giving it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much was spent on energy conservation by his Department in the last 12 months.

My Department spent £10·9 million in 1982–83.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, bearing in mind the timely announcement of the setting up of the energy efficiency office and his stated belief that Britain should become the most energy-efficient nation in western Europe, the Department of Energy will invest more resources in energy conservation than it has in the past year?

Yes. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Government hope next year to increase by £3 million the figure that I have already mentioned.

Given the Government's initiative in setting up the energy efficiency office as recommended by a Select Committee a year ago, will my right hon. Friend consider reviewing the Homes Insulation Act 1978, thereby making it more effective?

I wish to pay tribute to the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) in the Select Committee's report, and I shall examine the matter that he has raised.

The energy efficiency office issued a pamphlet in which it said:

"It can make firms more profitable, more competitive and create jobs."

Before, during and since the eletion, the Government's policy has always been to make industry more efficient and effective. That is the best way to retain jobs and create new ones. If industry would invest in the conservation programme, the Government believe that a potential saving of £300 million a year could be realised. Such a programme would require a once-and-for-all investment of £300 million. Given that industry can obtain a 100 per cent. return on its investment in one year, I hope that it will respond to the challenge.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has recently received concerning holdings of obligatory oil stocks.

A number of hon. Members and others have made representations to me.

Despite the reassurances that some independent companies have received, does my right hon. Friend accept that they are still very worried about the matter? Although the independent companies control only about 3 per cent. of the market, does he recognise that their flexibility and competitiveness are assets which the country cannot easily afford to lose?

Yes. In view of the position of some of the smaller independent companies, I have invited those who have any worries to describe and discuss them with my Department. Some discussions are continuing at present. I am genuinely concerned that if we do not extend the measures proposed, thereby ensuring the security of supply to some of the smaller companies, certain areas of the country could, at a time of emergency, be put at risk. For that reason, the Government have proposed their policy.

Does the Minister realise that the major suppliers have opted out of the rural areas? If the proposed measure comes into effect, we believe that the small independent companies, which are the sole suppliers to those areas, will be squashed to death. What advantage can there possibly be in the Government pursuing such action?

I have received no evidence, least of all from the hon. Gentleman, that the smaller independent suppliers will be squashed to death. Where difficulties have arisen, I have asked the relevant companies to explain them to officials in my Department. As a result of our discussions with companies it has been realised that the position is not as difficult as was previously thought. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared, at a time of emergency, to see his constituency without petroleum supplies?

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the expected levels of oil imports for electricity generation in the next five years.

Oil at present accounts for less than 10 per cent. of the fuel used for electricity generation by the public supply system. The proportion imported will depend on the relative price at the time, but it is unlikely to be dramatically increased.

In view of the requirements of the electrical generating industry and the Government's commitment to the coal mining industry, will the Minister consider what will happen if the Government do not stop the import of oil for generation purposes as soon as possible and use instead the millions of tonnes of coal that are already available or are being mined efficiently by British miners?

I understand fully the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents. As he knows, 75 per cent. of the electricity generated is from coal-fired stations. Oil constitutes a small percentage of the energy involved, but in many cases we have specialist oil-burning plants, which are essential for the maintenance of the national grid.

When assessing the future prospects, is any account taken of the potential contribution in the next five years of lignite in Northern Ireland?

I am happy to say that lignite is outwith my present responsibility.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 340,000 tonnes of anthracite and 2 million tonnes of coking coal are imported annually because Britain is short of supplies? Would not the Government do better to invest in those south Wales fields that contain coking coal and anthracite instead of having such large and artificial coal imports?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. He is aware that anthracite has been in notoriously short supply. Large investments have taken place in anthracite mining, including £12 million this year in the Betws complex. As soon as the extraction methods for anthracite are improved, more will be sold. In most cases, coal imports are of the types that are in short supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many National Coal Board pits have closed in the last 12 months.

In the period 1 November 1982 to 31 October 1983, 13 pits closed, four pairs of pits merged and one new pit opened.

Is Monktonhall colliery next on the hit list? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the miners there many of whom are my constituents, have returned to work today on the understanding that the Coal Board is committed to the future of the colliery? How can the colliery's high potential be realised if the NCB fails to restart the essential development programme at the pit?

The House welcomes the fact that the men at Monktonhall have returned to work. I sincerely hope that that will result in a productive operation there. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the NCB has made this massive investment in Scotland on the understanding that productivity and efficiency levels will be comparable to those that can be achieved with similar levels of investment elsewhere. I hope that the miners realise that fact.

What progress is the National Coal Board making in balancing production and demand in the industry?

That is, indeed, a relevant question in view of the enormously high levels of stocks, which are the subject of a separate question on the Order Paper. I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the only available way of balancing production and demand is to sell more coal, which means that prices must be more competitive.

How many pits would be saved and how many jobs safeguarded if some of the 70 million tonnes of coal that are imported into the European Community were replaced by indigenous production? Does the Minister also agree, having referred to increasing sales, that Europe is supposed to have expressed a deep obligation to its coal industry? Will he also state that Ministers will seek to ensure that the European Community deals with the problem?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments on the latter part of the question. We hope that greater efforts will be made within the European Community to deal with coal. Further progress was made at the Energy Council conference on 4 November.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that my constituency of Leicestershire, North-West will be suffering unduly from the closure of a large number of pits in the Leicestershire coalfield? Does he recognise, too, that the position would be alleviated greatly by the opening of the Asfordby mine? Will my hon. Friend give a date for the commencement of work on that mine?

I pay tribute to the way in which the Leicestershire miners have worked in past years. It has been among the most productive of the mining areas. My hon. Friend will know that the capital position of the Asfordby mine is being discussed.

In an attempt to assist, will the Minister make a positive attempt to resolve the dispute in the coal industry by calling a tripartite meeting to produce a plan for coal guaranteeing the future of the industry and of those who work in it?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his willingness to summon a tripartite meeting if all sections of the industry agree. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that a requirement of the last tripartite meeting and "Plan for Coal" in 1974 was for a reduction in unprofitable volume and for increased productivity and output, neither of which was achieved during the relevant period.

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

This was one of the matters discussed at the Energy Council, which I attended in Brussels last Friday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more sensible to conduct research into alternative sources of energy entirely on a Community basis rather than by the present mixture of national and Community research?

I believe that a great deal can be achieved on a Community basis, through both the Community's research and development programme and the energy demonstration projects that we have been discussing. There is considerable scope for that, but it is also worth pursuing in the United Kingdom some of the more exciting possibilities for alternative energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the disposal of power stations that are no longer needed.

My right hon. friend is always ready to meet the chairman of the CEGB, but questions concerning the disposal of power stations are a matter for the board.

Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend, when he meets the chairman of the CEGB, to consider again the proposals for the disposal of Battersea power station, about which there is much local concern, and to ask the chairman to ensure that the local community is adequately consulted about any plans for the future of that building?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the Energy Act, the CEGB and some area boards, especially in the midlands, are now actively pursuing partnerships with industry to convert some existing power stations to combined heat and power? Will the Government take note of that and, if necessary, support it?

The Government would welcome any scheme that found a suitable use for redundant power stations. Combined heat and power schemes were among the suggestions made in the competition on the future of Battersea power station.

Does the Minister accept that progress on the Atkins report, on which the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) touched, has been grossly inadequate? Does he agree that public expenditure of that kind is urgently needed and that many of the schemes identified in the report should have gone ahead already?

I note the hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction. He will appreciate, however, that the CEGB has had to carry out a major reappraisal of assets and their use in relation to the fall in energy demand.

Does my hon. Friend think that British industry as a whole would be more, or less, prosperous if the CEGB were allowed to import as much low-cost coal as it wished?

The CEGB depends to a very great extent on the use of coal. That use, of course, depends on the price that the board is prepared to pay. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the CEGB and the National Coal Board have recently agreed on provision for the next four years.

When will the Minister make an announcement about the Marshall report on combined heat and power, using disused power stations or otherwise? Does he intend to include Merseyside as one of the lead areas? Does he agree that if a fraction of the money that is being spent on nuclear energy, including the pressurised water reactor, were spent on projects such as combined heat and power the nation's fuel needs would be far better served?

The hon. Gentleman's comments are widely respected in the House. There should certainly be further development on this front. The Government are still considering the reports and we hope to make an announcement in due course.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Energy what is the current level of coal stocks; and what was the level on the same date five years ago.

Total coal stocks in Great Britain at the end of September were 58,437,000 tonnes. The level of coal stocks at the same date five years ago was 34,475,000.

Given the astronomical and extremely costly level of coal stocks and the low increase in productivity in the mining industry, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming case for a closure programme for uneconomic pits so that we may have cheaper coal and electricity and thus help the entire economy?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the large stocks of coal on the surface show that demand for coal at its present price is extremely low. He will be aware, however, that both the chairman of the National Coal Board and his predecessor, Sir Norman Siddall, made it clear to the industry that a reduction in the uneconomic minority of pits was necessary to ensure the viable development of the industry as a whole.

I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life. Are any of the Ministers at the Department of Energy aware of the reasons for the present circumstances? Do they realise that miners are breaking output records at many pits, including those in my constituency in which the number of pits has been reduced from nine to five? Are not stocks high because the Government have closed down half of British industry? When will they get industry back to work so that we can get rid of the coal stocks?

I respect entirely the hon. Gentleman's opening remark. His comments on coal matters are always apt. He will recognise, however, that the industry must turn out a product that those in British industry wishing to buy it can then reliably obtain. That is an incontrovertible fact, however one looks at the industry and its prospects.

In view of the Minister's reply and his answer to question 14, is it not clear that the coal industry is now suffering from the miners' success in producing cheap coal efficiently? Will he join me in advising all miners and their families never to go to Southend for their holidays?

I shall leave the latter point to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) will surely recognise, as I do, that there have been major advances in the productivity of British pits. At long last there has been a major achievement in relation to the 4·7 per cent. forecast in 1974, but that is clearly insufficient when one considers the present level of sales of British coal.

Will the Minister consider running an education course on energy for his colleagues? Will he also impress on the Cabinet the possibilities of extending to agriculture the logic of his attitude to the coal industry—that if stocks are too high farms should be closed?

I note the hon. Gentleman's observations, but I am not sure that they will solve present problems.

Is the Minister aware that what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said is true and that pits and miners in many communities, including that which I represent, are breaking production records month after month? Is he aware that, rather than praise, they simply get kicks in the teeth from the Government? Why do we not cut the 2 million tonnes of coal that is imported and use our stocks to regenerate British industry rather than listen to the type of cant that we have heard today?

I will not take it from the hon. Gentleman that he has received nothing but kicks in the teeth from the Government. I must remind him of the significantly higher investment in the coal industry that has taken place under the Conservative Government. I must remind him also of the £364 million that was put into the industry last year and that the Coal Industry Bill allows for borrowing requirement of £6 billion. The Government have backed the industry. It is time that the industry backed itself.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the current overtime ban will not reduce coal stocks? Will he therefore urge the National Union of Mineworkers to call a pithead ballot so that the dispute can be ended?

Hon. Members on both sides of the House gravely regret a dispute of this type in the coal industry. It can only harm those who work in it and its prospects of a return to viability.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has contingency plans for alternative supplies of energy in the event of disruption of oil imports.

Yes. There are plans to make maximum use of alternative forms of energy in the event of oil shortages.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the apparent sale of French Exocet missiles to Iraq puts the West's supply of oil through the straits of Hormuz at great risk? Can he assure us that we have detailed and effective plans for energy conservation in that event—in addition, that is, to his possibly advising us to clean our teeth in the dark?

We have an oil-sharing scheme with other Western industrial nations. Our electricity industry's considerable generating capacity and our oil resources show that we have several indigenous sources of energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made by his Department in discussions with the Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents on the effects of the Petroleum Stocks (Amendment) Order 1983 on the association's members.

The association was informed 15 months ago about the proposals contained in the order. Discussions were held with the association last January and have continued with member companies since.

As the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that there were no reliable estimates of how the order would hit independent oil producers, is he aware that the Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents has estimated that the order will cost oil producers £1·5 million each? Is he further aware that, by the Government's own estimates, the order is likely to raise the price of petrol by 2p to 3p per gallon—affecting rural motorists once again?

I utterly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. The total costs of introducing oil storage arrangements and the rest might reach the figure that the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, many independent companies do not work as the hon. Gentleman suggested—they rely on their suppliers for holding some of their stock. That is why I have arranged for companies that are experiencing difficulties to come to discuss them with my Department. The Department has been able to assist in several ways. My door is still open if companies want help. All hon. Members have responsibility to ensure security of supply, whether to rural areas or to main centres of population.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average output per man-shift in the National Coal Board in each of the last five years.

In 1978–79 overall output per man-shift was 2·24 tonnes. From 1979–80, on a slightly different definition, revenue output per man-shift has been as follows: 1979–80, 2·31 tonnes; 1980–81, 2·32 tonnes; 1981–82, 2·40 tonnes; 1982–83, 2·44 tonnes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are wholly unsatisfactory, the reason being that old mines have been kept open instead of being closed? Would it not be in the interests of the coal industry to go ahead with more projects like those at Selby and the Vale of Belvoir?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I pay tribute to the fact that at least the movement is significant and in the correct direction. The House must also be aware that there is a limit to how far the capital investment available can stretch in seeking to cover every eventuality. The Coal Board must concentrate it where it is most needed and where it can be used most profitably.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many visits to Hong Kong, by Select Committees, were made in the last three years; and how many hon. Members participated.

In the last three years three visits have been paid to Hong Kong by Select Committees. The numbers of hon. Members participating in each was six, eight, and nine.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Were the itineraries arranged on the advice of the Hong Kong Government? As the main political leaders in Hong Kong are nominated rather than elected, does he agree that visitors seeking to assess local opinion in Hong Kong in accordance with the Government's proposals in the Queen's Speech would be advised to consult as widely as possible?

On the latter point, the answer must be yes. On the former, I must confess that I do not know, but I shall certainly find out and let my hon. Friend know.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me, either now or later, by which airline the delegation flew?

I certainly cannot tell my hon. Friend now.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with trade union representatives of the Civil Service.

Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.

How can the Government claim that any genuine pay bargaining is possible when they have every intention of using cash limits to impose their 3 per cent. wage increase policy? Is he aware that such a pay increase would mean a wage cut in real terms for the fourth successive year for most low-paid civil servants? Is this yet another example of the Government's double standards?

Cash limits are in operation for this year and for 1983–84. The hon. Gentleman will recall that a negotiated settlement on pay was reached with Civil Service unions. I welcome that agreement and hope that the hon. Gentleman will. I have no reason to believe that it will not be possible to achieve a negotiated settlement for 1984–85.

In such discussions, will my hon. Friend include on the agenda better methods of taking account of the true value of index-linked pensions and of allowing for them in future wage bargaining?

Account is taken of all factors during negotiations. My hon. Friend knows that the Conservatives fought the recent general election campaign on the proposal that public sector employees should make realistic contributions for their index-linked pensions.

Will the Minister discuss with the Civil Service unions the scrapping of the 22 million riles on PAYE clients? What will his attitude to civil servants be on that matter?

I am prepared to consider discussing that matter with Civil Service unions if they wish to raise it. I should have thought that that issue was of more interest to just one union—the Inland Revenue Staff Federation—and perhaps one of my colleagues at the Treasury, as they are more closely concerned.

Will my hon. Friend discuss the ways in which all trade unionists can be persuaded or encouraged to attach more weight to their long-term interests than to their short-term interests?

The Civil Service unions' record in that respect is good. I was delighted to see that the overwhelming majority of Civil and Public Services Association members voted not to affiliate to the Labour party. That shows that they have a good regard for their long-term interests.

If the Minister holds a meeting with Civil Service unions, will he discuss the polygraph system? If so, will he bear in mind the recent and influential report of the American Congress, which suggests that the system is not reliable?

The hon. Gentleman might be aware that that issue was raised in the House during the debate on the Civil Service a week last Friday. I said then that the Government intended to go ahead with the pilot survey on the use of polygraphs. I also said that full account would be taken of the many reservations that have been expressed about the system.

If my hon. Friend discusses the proposals on PAYE files, will he also apprise himself of the Inland Revenue's strange requirement that its officers may not telephone anyone in the morning? Surely that is counter-productive in the garnering of revenue.

The proposal that Inland Revenue staff should not use telephones in the morning was made by management with a view to reducing heavy telephone charges incurred by the Inland Revenue. I am not aware of any reduction in the amount of revenue garnered.

Will my hon. Friend explain to the Civil Service unions and my constituents why almost all Government Departments, including some vital ones, have reduced their manpower while the agricultural intervention board organisation, which is now enormous, has increased its manpower every year since the Government came to power? Is he aware that the board's main function is to provide subsidies for the export of food to Russia and elsewhere at prices that are less than half that which my constituents and his must pay?

I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has brought up this subject during Civil Service questions. He knows that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Civil Service manpower has been reduced so much that we are nearing the smallest Civil Service since the end of the second world war. That is a creditable achievement.

In view of the possible breakdown in pay and other negotiations, will the Minister urge the Government to reconsider their refusal to Megaw to be bound to go to arbitration, especially as the Prime Minister constantly nags other trade unions to go to arbitration before, as she puts it, rushing into disputes.

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities and wish her well in them. She will be aware that the Megaw committee said that unilateral access was inappropriate. The Government share that view. The hon. Lady will also know that these matters are still being negotiated by the Government and the Council of Civil Service Unions. I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement based on the Megaw recommendations.