asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has completed his study of the consultant's report on combined heat and power and district heating schemes; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement shortly.

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement shortly, but we hope that it will be in the very near future, not some distant future. Does he agree that if combined heat and power schemes are to be successful they will require the Government' enthusiastic backing and a guarantee against risks? Does he accept that if the feet-dragging is prolonged much further it could prejudice the success of any schemes that are brought to fruition?

There is n˙ question of dragging feet. The Government are committed to the idea. We have already spent over £900,000 on feasibility studies which raise many issues which we are studying thoroughly. As soon as we come to a conclusion we shall make an announcement, which I hope will be shortly.

Has my right hon. Friend studied the various independent assessments, including energy paper No. 52 by the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, saying that the purchase of more high-cost Norwegian gas would be a less cost-effective supply option than investing in Leeds city combined heat and power using coal as a base, apart from the savings on our balance of payments? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider those alternative options, as compared with the other supply options which might well pre-empt them?

I take note of my hon. Friend's views.

Does the Minister accept that, apart from the full-hearted co-operation of the Government, it is necessary to secure the full-hearted co-operation of the councils involved? Is he aware that the Newcastle upon Tyne council is extremely keen to take up the scheme as soon as possible?

We are grateful for the support that we have received, particularly in the preparation of the feasibility studies. We shall take it into account in our final assessment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss the importation of Sleipner gas.

I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Gas. Possible sources of new gas supplies, such as those on offer from the Norwegian Sleipner field, are kept under review.

Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that the purchase of high-price Norwegian gas will delay the development of United Kingdom sector gasfields, with the inevitably adverse effect that that will have on onshore and offshore employment, as well as about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) about CHP? If he allows the Sleipner transaction to go ahead, will he ensure that gas exports will be permitted from the United Kingdom sector?

I assure my hon. Friend that in whatever decisions are taken in this connection careful consideration will be given to the importance of maintaining progress in developing our own offshore facilities.

I am glad that the Minister has explained the position, but will he confirm the report that his Department is recommending that British Gas should import gas from the Dutch sector, instead of going ahead with the Sleipner deal? Will he also acknowledge that, if that is so, it is a recognition that Sleipner gas would so distort the British market as to cause considerable uncertainty for future supplies from the United Kingdom sector?

No, Sir. However, I can confirm that the British Gas Corporation has spoken to the Dutch and Norwegians and also to suppliers of gas in our North sea fields, and that it has taken all three potentialities into consideration in coming to whatever conclusions it reaches.

Has not the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act encouraged exploration in the southern basin of the North sea where the gas is? If so, has my right hon. Friend any idea of how long it will be before we are self-sufficient again in gas supplies?

In any projections for the 1990s, Britain will continue, as now, to be a net importer of gas.

Did not the Secretary of State, in answer to previous questions on energy, draw attention to the value and importance of Sleipner gas as part of a long-term depletion policy? Is there an application before the right hon. Gentleman? What procedure will now be followed to decide whether he will authorise that arrangement with the Norwegian authorities?

The Norwegians and the Dutch have made certain offers to the BGC. We are examining those, as we are examining other alternatives, and we shall then come to a conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board; and what matters were discussed.

I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of the NCB the statement by the previous chairman, Sir Norman Siddall, concerning the softly, softly approach towards colliery closures and the coal industry in general? Does the right hon. Gentleman not now realise that on the appointment of Ian Macgregor Labour Members were correct to say that there were far better potential chairmen within the NCB's management?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a chairman of the NCB who has kept up a massive investment in the coal industry, who has recently persuaded the Government to put £400 million into the development of Asfordby, and who has seen to it that at pits that have been closed all the miners had the option of either alternative jobs or early retirement, which many have taken.

Did not the chairman of the NCB have a similar experience in the steel industry to that which he is now facing? Will my right hon. Friend urge him to give Mr. Arthur Scargill the same advice as he gave to the leaders of the steel workers union—to go slowly or put many coal miners out of work, with uncompetitive pits?

Mr. Macgregor has endeavoured to improve Britain's potential in other markets. I am glad to say that, whereas when the Government took office in 1979 we were a net importer of coal, we are now a net exporter. The one Socialist Government in Europe — France— having promised the miners that they would substantially increase coal production, have now decided to get rid of half the miners in France.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the fact that by the turn of the century the BGC expects to be needing about 90 million tonnes of coal? Did he discuss his plans for investment to provide that coal?

I have heard no suggestion from the BGC that it will need 90 million tonnes of coal at that time. That is not in any projection that I have received from the BGC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the chairman of the NCB came off what, bluntly, has become an almost softly, softly approach? We cannot go on putting £800 million a year into new investments if it is to be swallowed up in continually loss-making mines which, in the end, will ruin the industry and the taxpayer.

The important point is that we have made the massive investment necessary to have good, economic pits. That is happening under this Government to a greater degree than it did under the previous Government. We must go about the closure of uneconomic pits in a sensible and civilised way, which is just what we are doing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if he can say that it is right and proper to give tax relief to uneconomical marginal oilfields, and if it is right and proper to give additional subsidies to hill farms—marginal agriculture—in order to maximise their efficiency, it must surely be right to ensure that marginal uneconomic pits get the same sort of aid in order to make sure that we have energy when oil has run out?

Not at all. The big difference between the tax position of the oil companies and the NCB is that the NCB is not taxed, because it makes only losses. Taxes on the oil industry are running at more than 80 per cent. Obviously, I should be delighted if the coal industry made profits that we could tax at 80 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must face the reality that the Government are investing much more in the coal industry's future than did the previous Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the division and disunity in the coalfields today, when more than half the mines are working, is a sure sign that the miners have grasped the message of the Government's commitment to and investment in the coal industry and recognise that the real mischief in this situation lies not with the Government, but with the present miners leaders who seek to threaten the industry's future?

There is no doubt that many miners are well aware of the massive capital investment that the Government are putting into the mining industry. They are also well aware of the very generous terms that we have offered to those miners now over the age of 50 who have been affected by potential closures. They are aware of both those facts. I think that the events today certainly show that the miners would like the opportunity of a secret ballot to express their view.

Because of the present serious situation in the coalfields, has the Secretary of State been in touch with both sides of industry over the weekend? Does he not think that he ought now to intervene and bring both sides together? Does he not think that the MacGregor plan should be put on one side while meaningful discussions take place, and that it is his responsibility to bring the two sides together as soon as possible?

No, Sir. Last week both sides of the industry met. They decided that they would prepare a number of suggestions so that they could collectively come to me and express those views. As always, if both sides of the industry wish to come to me with certain aspects of their policy, I shall be only to pleased to see them and to discuss the matter with them. Certainly I shall not intervene in what is basically the clear-cut management position of a management that wishes to invest more in economic mines, cut out the burden of the uneconomic mines, and do it in a civilised and generous way.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he now has figures for the total amount of coal imported in 1983 and the country of origin.

The United Kingdom imported only 4 per cent. of its coal requirements in 1983. The majority of the coal imported, some 70 per cent., came from Australia and the United States.

Is the Minister aware that, although imports amounted to only 4 per cent., that coal might have saved three of the collieries that have been closed in my constituency since 1979? Is he aware that that coal might also have been mined in a new pit in Margam, if the Government should decide that it should go ahead? Will the Minister tell me also whether Ian MacGregor has any direct or indirect personal interest in any of the countries from which we are importing coal?

The hon. Gentleman's last point is scarcely worth answering. He should fully understand that the chairman of the National Coal Board is doing everything in his power to increase exports of British-mined coal. As to the hon. Gentleman's other point, he will know better than I that, in the continuing shortage of certain special coals, including anthracite, there is indeed a market for imported coal. However, the long-term intention must be to develop coal at a price that will satisfy the market, and the Central Electricity Generating Board has guaranteed to take 95 per cent. of its requirement from the NCB for the next few years.

Has the Minister had an opportunity of discussing the recent statement by the chairman of the CEGB that, if he could import his total requirement of coal, it would reduce electricity prices by 15 per cent? When he takes that opportunity, will he tell the NCB what effect that would have on this country's industry and in particular, jobs in other industries?

I take note of my hon. Friend's comment, and I am, indeed, aware of the comment of the chairman of the CEGB. However, the chairman is committing the CEGB to take 95 per cent. of its required volume from British sources.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the overtime ban currently imposed by the National Union of Mineworkers.

The effect of the ban, which has now entered its 20th week, is most severe or, those imposing it: by 2 March miners had lost £69·3 million, the equivalent of more than two weeks' wages for every man in the industry.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that he has complete support on these Benches for his earlier answer in which he indicated that he would not interfere in management decisions —decisions which, in the present situation, are based on a circumstance in which, through the back door, the NUM leadership is trying to secure a national strike in respect of which it is not prepared to ballot its own membership?

I note my hon. Friend's views. The potential of this industry, modernised and without the burden of the uneconomic pits, is such that it will be an industry very much to the benefit of the miners.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the Select Committee on Energy, which illustrates that, despite Mr. MacGregor's statements to the nation that everything is going well, under his chairmanship the NCB will probably lose about £204 million? Why is it that the only person who seems to support Mr. MacGregor is the Prime Minister? Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit that MacGregor is a disaster and has plunged the industry into conflict?

Contrary to being a disaster, Mr. MacGregor is of great benefit to the future of the mining industry in Britain—[Interruption.] What is disastrous is the pretence that it is the interests of the miners to keep uneconomic pits and not develop economic ones.

Despite the remarks in the House last week by the newly-elected right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one person in Britain from whom the British coal industry needs to be saved, that person being Mr. Arthur Scargill? Does he further agree that in that process of salvation we are more likely to have the support of members of the NUM than of members of the Opposition?

It is not for me to comment on the activities of any union leader, though one other person from whom the industry needs to be safeguarded is the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

When was the Secretary of State informed that the NCB had lost £135 million? As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made plain, the position was made clear in the Select Committee's report. Therefore, has not Mr. MacGregor got it wrong, and should not the Secretary of State take a fresh look at the situation and withdraw the MacGregor plan while he is doing that?

No, Sir. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that the lost £135 million is, in reality, a loss of the stocks of coal at pitheads, which will not be as large as they would otherwise have been. As they are already on a massive scale, it is no great problem for the NCB. As the Select Committee report showed, the cash flow of the NCB has improved, not deteriorated.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have recently been made to his Department regarding the operation of the Offshore Supplies Office.

Representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals are a regular feature of the Department's business.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the healthy looking figure issued by the Offshore Supplies Office of 70 per cent. plus involvement by British industry in the North sea, the true figure for wholly-owned British companies is about only 40 per cent. and that that does not tend to be in high technology matters? Will his Department take steps to ensure that wholly-owned British companies will benefit during the next round of investment in the North sea of £50 billion to £60 billion.

The 40 per cent. to which my hon. Friend refers is a conjectural figure. The important point to remember is that the estimates of the Offshore Supplies Office are based on firms that are making a direct contribution to the United Kingdom economy, which is the correct basis on which to assess the position. As for the type of activity, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that we want to see it taking place in high technology, and he need not go much further than his constituency to see many examples of wholly British firms which are at the forefront of development in the North sea.

Is it not a fact that, despite the figure of 70 per cent. in general terms, on the exploration side we have a very disappointing share of the export market? What efforts are the Government and the Offshore Supplies Office making to improve that percentage?

I am extremely disappointed with matters on the drilling side, but there are a number of historic reasons for that. There was high British activity at one point but for a number of reasons, that declined. That is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the efforts of the Government to keep open Scott Lithgow, which is one means of maintaining a high capability of building drilling rigs in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to discuss investment with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will discuss investment in the industry during his next meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss all aspects of the industry.

Will the Secretary of State have an early meeting with the chairman of the board on the subject of my question? Is he aware that the level of investment is at the heart of the present difficulties of the coal industry? As we are constantly told that about £2 million a day is invested in the coal industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentlemen to comment on three aspects of the issue? First, does he agree that it is the lowest investment per tonne produced in the EEC; secondly, does he agree that it is about half the subsidy paid to British agriculture; and thirdly, does he accept that it does not even begin to meet the social consequences of pit closures in mining communities?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has his figures wrong. He is mixing the totality of financing for the industry with the figure of £2 million a day, which is purely capital investment in the coal industry. In less than five years while this Government have been in office we have invested £3·5 billion in capital investment in the coal industry. Britain compares favourably with, for example, France, which has just announced that it will halve the size of its coal industry.

Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Norman Siddall's recent statement on the massive task of returning the industry to profitability within three years? Is it correct that the present management's attitude is hindering rather than helping the position?

The number of closures during the past year and the many difficulties that that has created is low compared with the average number of closures during the office of past Labour Governments. Closures in the coal mines have been a regular feature of the industry. During 11 years of Labour Government, more than 300 pit closures occurred. In nine years of Conservative Government, 92 pit closures occurred.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the past 10 years we have spent £7 billion on the mines, which is equivalent to receipts in taxation in one year from the North sea? Is there not a limit to the capital expenditure and other social benefits which may be granted?

It is vital for this country to have a strong and successful coal industry which continues well into the next century. That is why Mr. Ian MacGregor has been correct in continuing with a high level of capital investment and proceeding in a civilised way with the closure of uneconomic pits.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are scandalised that this year the Coal Board will lose £1,114 million, to which is to be added another £700 million or £800 million in investment in the industry? We should accelerate the pit closure programme to take account of the appalling blood-letting and haemorrhaging on British industry?

It is important that we maintain a successful coal industry for the future. It is important also that we close uneconomic pits, but that that should be done in a civilised and generous way. Many of those pits involve whole communities, and there are considerable difficulties. When pits become uneconomic on that basis or scale, the House should show understanding of the problems. Mr. Ian MacGregor and the National Coal Board are doing just that.

In view of the Secretary of State's statements just now about investment, will he tell the House and the British public how many new pits have been given permission to be opened since May 1979?

No, Sir. I can give the details of very substantial investment in existing pits. I refer to the enormous development at Selby and the recent announcement of £400 million investment in one pit in Asfordby.

Would we not have a much more efficient coal industry if the National Union of Mineworkers stuck by its part of "Plan for Coal", which envisaged closures at a speedier rate than has happened?

In three features of "Plan for Coal" the Government have more than exceeded the promises on investment. The two unsuccessful factors have been productivity, which was estimated to increase by 4 per cent. a year and in fact was 4·9 per cent. over 10 years, and the closure rate, which was to have been between 3 million tonnes and 4 million tonnes of uneconomic coal a year, but in fact has been at a rate of between only 1 million and 2 million tonnes a year.

Does the Secretary of State recall recently writing to me and refusing to see me in connection with threatened pit closures and redundancies at Bates' pit in Northumberland? Is he trying to be obtuse, or can he not help that? Does he realise that the National Coal Board's ferocious policy of closing pits in north-east England is causing immense hardship to communities including coal miners and their families, and is occurring against the overwhelming body of evidence which shows high productivity, good quality coal and profitability?

There are procedures for pit closures. Details are provided to the unions and full discussion takes place. That would apply to any pit closure.

Before my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he have a study made of the feasibility of giving uneconomic pits to the miners to operate as co-operatives?

We would certainly consider any approach by miners along those lines. I would not rule it out, but I have not seen any rush of miners to carry out that function.

The Secretary of State referred to people getting their figures right and wrong. Is it not a fact that the Select Committee—and Mr. MacGregor gave evidence to it—found that, taking into account all the so-called savings of the overtime ban, the net cost of the ban in this financial year is £135 million? When did the Secretary of State discover that figure?

The figure was given by the National Coal Board a week or so— I forget the exact date—before the Select Committee met. It was also given in my evidence to the Select Committee. We both gave that evidence. I repeat, the profit and loss on revenue account is different from the cash flow. The Select Committee was informed by Mr. MacGregor and myself that the overtime ban had resulted in an improvement in the National Coal Board's cash flow.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation preventing landlords from charging tenants more for electricity than the official rate; and if he will make a statement.

This has been the subject of a recent review by the Office of Fair Trading, which will shortly be issuing a consultative document.

When considering that report, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the downright unfairness of people paying rent to a landlord and then being surcharged for electricity by the same landlord? Surely that is unjust and iniquitous. Should not something be done about it?

I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's point. We will bear it in mind. He will be aware that area boards publicise maximum retail prices in their leaflets and information, of which landlords should take note.

Does the Minister recall that his Department killed my private Member's Bill on that subject last Session? It would have criminalised overcharging by landlords. Does he realise that the Bill now has the support of the relevant consumer councils and reflects considerable anxiety because of the widespread abuse? The Government then used the excuse of an expected report from the Office of Fair Trading. When it now reports, will the Government seek another excuse for delaying the matter?

I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman of the Government's response to the report. He should bear in mind that the matter was examined between 1974 and 1977 and that an investigation concluded that no statutory change was required. As the new investigation was inspired by the consumer consultative councils, I assure him that we shall pay the greatest possible attention to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current number of licences granted by his Department for onshore exploration and production of oil and gas.

There are currently 100 exploration and 113 production licences.

Will the Minister give details of the number of licences that have existed for a reasonably long time during which no drilling has taken place? Will he also give an undertaking that he will liaise with his right hon. Friends responsible for planning matters to ensure some harmony between the development of exploration and production of onshore oil and gas and the planning mechanism of the local authorities involved, because of the view that they are out of harmony and that we need an update and examination of the issue?

I could not without notice give the hon. Gentleman the detailed information for which he has asked. I am sure he understands that. Liaison with the planning authorities is one aspect of the review that I have been carrying out for the past six months. I hope that when I announce the results of the review, which will be fairly soon, we shall be able to meet some of the points and anxieties which have been expressed and which I think the hon. Gentleman feels.

As Wytch farm is the largest onshore development, will the Minister give us an assurance that no action will be taken by the Government to sell that valuable asset before the Select Committee has met and reported?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is under consideration and being dealt with at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the new advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations at Heysham and Torness.

I am advised that the construction cost incurred by the CEGB to 31 December 1983 of the Heysham II power station was £777 million. Electricity in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the excellent progress that has been made on both sites? Does that not give the lie to the notion that new power stations cannot be built on time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It is a fact that both the Heysham II and Torness reactors are moving to time and cost. That is no mean achievement.

Do costs to the public include reprocessing costs based on ALARA — as low as reasonably achievable — or ALATA — as low as technically achievable — in terms of radiation discharges? Is the Minister aware that if the Government pursue the ALARA route and do not commit themselves fully to ALATA, they will further damage the environment of constituencies such as mine?

I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman frequently expresses about matters affecting the environment in his constituency, but he will be aware that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is the prime company involved in reprocessing in this country, and that the activities of that plant are fully licensed and regulated by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the jokes in my constituency used to be that if one wanted to work for large sums of money, while making little effort, one went to work at Heysham I? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, fortunately, that situation has been significantly changed by the remarkable progress of Heysham II, which not only is on time and on cost but in real terms will be cheaper than Heysham I?

My hon. Friend is right that Heysham I encountered substantial delays due to many changes in the design. The advantage at Heysham II is that, with the benefit of consistency of design, one gets consistency of result.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the effects of the increased price of heavy fuel oil on capital intensive industry; and if he will make a statement.

Since I replied to my hon. Friend on 10 February, competition has already reduced the increase that I mentioned then.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of industry at the high price of heavy fuel oil, particularly 18 per cent. price increases in the past six months, the instantaneous nature of the price increases and the burden of heavy fuel oil tax?

I am aware of that concern, particularly in energy-intensive industries which use fuel oil. As my hon. Friend knows, the prices of that product tend to be higher in the winter because of seasonal factors. As I said earlier, the prices have eased somewhat, even since the last increase. It is significant that the United Kingdom price, net of tax, is comparable to prices elsewhere in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has given any recent guidance to the energy-producing industries about the emission of sulphurous fumes from power stations.

The Government examine closely any sign that changes may be needed in control of power station emissions, but I have issued no new guidance.

Does my hon. Friend believe that British power stations are contributing to the growth of the acid rain? Is there any action that the Government can take to improve the situation?

It is a fact that emissions from power stations contribute to the problem known as acid rain, but my hon. Friend will be aware that since 1972 there has been about a 30 per cent. reduction of emissions from United Kingdom power stations. It is therefore by no means certain that the amount that is currently being produced has added significantly to that great international problem.

What is the Government's response to the Royal Commission's recommendation that there should be a five-year programme of sulphur emission control? Do the Government intend to accept that recommendation and cough up the money to fund it?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Royal Commission is reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Royal Commission's report correctly, he will note that it has made a recommendation about a single retrofit station being applied. He will also note many other recommendations, one of which states that an increase in nuclear power is desirable.

When talking about acid rain, will my hon. Friend confirm that no one is yet sure of the total emission factor, not least because in years gone by there were many more coal-burning chimneys and there were fish, greenery and no apparent problem of acid rain? Does he agree with the pamphlet recently produced in the United States, entitled:

"A billion dollar solution to a million dollar problem"?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem demands careful research on what should best be done to reduce the incidence of acid rain. My hon. Friend will be aware that the CEGB and the NCB have combined to provide a £5 million budget for international research on the issue.

Will my hon. Friend pursue this matter urgently as our partners in Europe are extremely concerned about acid rain? Does he appreciate that if he visits the Black Forest, as I have, and witnesses the death of trees there and throughout Europe, he will realise that the problem requires urgent attention from the British Government as well as from other Governments?

I accept that my hon. Friend has seen evidence of the problem for himself. He must accept, however, that there are many different aspects to this environmental damage, and that even the Swedes have now taken the view that the problems affecting their forests are different from those affecting their rivers and lakes.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give his projections of the level of nuclear power in the United Kingdom up to the year 2000.

My Department submitted a set of energy projections, including future nuclear capacity, in its evidence to the Sizewell B inquiry. A copy of this evidence was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 7 October 1982.

I am certain that my right hon. Friend will agree that that answer is somewhat obscure. Does he agree that the French performance on nuclear power is much better than that of the United Kingdom? Does not the tenth report of the Royal Commission on atmospheric pollution suggest that certain environmental factors should discourage the use of coal—not merely pollution in the atmosphere, but subsidence and the deposit of colliery shale? Those problems could be avoided completely with a bigger nuclear pogramme.

I agree with my hon. Friend that a country such as the United Kingdom should have a wide range of supply options available, and I attach importance to the safe and economic development of nuclear power. French industry and the French economy have benefited from the progress that the French have made in the use of nuclear power.

Will the Secretary of State further elucidate the reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and tell us whether, when the economic costing of nuclear power for the year 2000 is calculated, the disposal of waste is based on the ALARA or the ALATA principle?

All the factors involved are taken into consideration in the projections. On every factor known, there is no doubt that nuclear energy has proved to be a sensible and economic form of energy. It has certainly benefited France.

What proportion of United Kingdom electricity will be produced by nuclear power in the year 2000?

The submissions made previously in the report of the Department of Energy showed that the proportion of nuclear capacity could be between 25 and 30 per cent.

If the Secretary of State's projections were fulfilled, what would be the effect on coal burn?

It is likely that coal burn will remain a substantial element. There is a range of options. 'There are variations in gas and oil supplies as well as in coal. There is no doubt that the programme that we have inherited was agreed to by the Labour Government.

Is there the slightest prospect of reaching the target that was announced to the House in November 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)?

I do not recall the precise details of that announcement, but I should guess that the target then outlined will not be met, due to deferments and considerations of future investment programmes.

How important is Sizewell B to the Secretary of State's proposals?

I have not made proposals, but I have commented on the evidence that has been given about the role of Sizewell B. If, after the inquiry, it goes ahead, it would be an important factor; but we must await the results of that inquiry and consider fully what the inspector says.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many cities have now been visited in the energy efficiency campaign by his Department's officials; and if he will make a statement.

My energy efficiency campaign has so far covered 15 towns and cities. The visits have included seven early-morning meetings with a total of 2,000 senior executives, and our investigations suggest that a majority of these are going on to take active steps to improve energy efficiency.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and the obvious attention being paid by the Department to such an important matter. I direct his attention to the northwest of England, where a good proportion of traditional manufacturing industry is located and which has much to gain from energy conservation schemes. Will he assure the House that through the scheme the Department is paying great attention to traditional manufacturing industry?

I am glad to say that there was a gathering in the north-west last week. We shall visit Manchester for a special session on 9 May, when there will also be an "Energy Saver Show". We believe that much can be achieved in the north-west.

During the campaign will my right hon. Friend consult local authorities, which could make immense potential savings? Is he aware that in Devon nearly £1 million has been saved this year? Will he pursue that aspect as a major priority during his efficiency campaign?

Yes. In our estimate of what can be achieved in this area we believe that, with sensible energy efficiency methods, local authorities could save £100 million from their energy bills.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will introduce proposals to enable regular debates by the House on early-day motions supported by more than 180 right hon. and hon. Members.

I have no such proposals.

Why not?

Because I am unaware of any deep or genuine demand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that there are already too many early-day motions and that if they were debated the situation would become intolerable? Does he further agree that if the proposals of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were implemented the hon. Gentleman would be able to raise the boredom level to even greater heights that he already does?

There is no doubt that many early-day motions are tabled as expressions of opinion rather than in the expectation of debate, and I believe that that serves a purpose.

If the Leader of the House cannot meet the request of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will he arrange for debates on subjects chosen by groups of members—say, those representing more than 20 per cent. of the electorate—which is a facility currently extended to the Labour party but not to other parties in the House?

The hon. Gentleman may wish to address that argument to the proposed Procedure Committee rather than to rehearse it now.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate discussions on the reform of Standing Committee procedures.

As my hon. Friend will have noted from the Order Paper, it is proposed to set up a new Procedure Committee, which, if the motion is approved by the House, will be asked to review our Standing Committee procedures.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do all that he can to encourage the Committee to discuss the possible guillotining and timetabling of all Bills going through Parliament? As all controversial Bills are guillotined now if that is necessary to get them through, would not an agreed timetable from the outset facilitate better and more reasoned scrutiny of legislation?

Those are highly controversial matters. I think that that is one reason why the Procedure Committee will wish to consider them in its own time and way.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Catering Sub-Committee is consulted about the menus in the Members Dining Room and cafeteria; and if he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply to this question.

I am sure that the House agrees with my hon. Friend, but does he share my regret at the decline of the traditional British pudding? Does he agree that Parliament has a role to play in preserving good rice pudding, summer pudding, plum pie and similar delights by placing them even more regularly on our menus? Does he not think that schools and housewives would then follow the example set by the House and keep the traditional pudding alive?

I remind my hon. Friend that there is a wide range of puddings on offer. In a 37-week parliamentary year rice pudding was on the menu more than 40 times, summer pudding 10 times—in view of our summer, that seems reasonable—and plum pudding 50 times around Christmas and 10 times in other periods of the year. I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has managed to keep his figure—he perhaps feels that he should be built up—but most hon. Members need to be built down because we have dietary problems. Therefore, we try to avoid fatty puds whenever we can. If my hon. Friend had been in the House at lunchtime today, however, instead of in his constituency, where I know that he is most diligent, he would have noticed that both plum pudding and custard and creamy rice with blackcurrants were on the menu.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the New Buildings Sub-Committee will consider the question of subway access to the Palace.

I will draw the matter to the attention of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) who is Chairman of the Sub-Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of shame at the filthy condition of the Bridge street underpass to this place? It is the approach that is most used by both British and overseas pedestrian visitors to the House. It is full of the most disgraceful dirt on the floor, ceiling and walls, and is rarely cleaned. It is frequently filled with faeces, both human and canine, with the appropriate smells. It is a cause for extreme shame when we are showing visitors to this country the Mother of Parliaments. Will my right hon. Friend arrange to have something done immediately about those deplorable conditions? In particular, is it possible for a subway to be built between the House and the underground in preparation for the new buildings in Parliament Street?

My hon. Friend clearly feels deeply about these matters, but his questions go somewhat wider than the original question. I understand that the cleaning of the subway is the responsibility of Westminster city council, but I will investigate the point.

Privatisation.

I believe that the cleaning is part of municipal activity.

In considering the matter of access to the House from remote offices, will my right hon. Friend consider the problem of access from the Dean's yard offices? Access is often blocked by large numbers of tourists in the Abbey pathways and by the lack of a pedestrian crossing to the House.

That question definitely goes very wide of my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is now satisfied with the basis of comparing costs within the Civil Service with costs quoted by outside contractors when work is put out to tender.

Yes, and the necessary guidance has been issued to Departments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread anxiety that fixed and overhead costs are not being allocated correctly when the Civil Service produces its internal costs? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the guidance note is published and made available to outside contractors?

Yes. I shall ensure that the guidance notes, or the essential elements, are put in the Library. I understand that a sensible financial framework has been established so that proper comparisons can be made.

the Minister for the Civil Service for which Civil Service posts it is a requirement that the applicants must have British parents; and what is the definition of British for this purpose.

It is not an absolute requirement for any Civil Service post that an applicant's parents must be British citizens in the terms of the British Nationality Act 1981. The Civil Service Commission's nationality rules are difficult to summarise, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that the careers service, certainly in London, is advising applicants for clerical posts in the Ministry of Defence that they must have British parents? Will the Minister provide more information—possibly not this afternoon—on the basis of Civil Service recruitment, as the stipulation that applicants for fairly junior posts must have British parents is confusing, to say the least, and unduly restrictive?

It would appear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that there is some misunderstanding of the precise rules that should be applied. I am making them available in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman and anyone else have points that they would like to raise with me, I shall look into any detailed information that they want.

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

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

Is it true or proper for ACAS, in the form of Mr. Lambert, to be drawn into the controversial mire of Cheltenham?

I am glad to be able to explain the precise formal circumstances, despite the fact that this question should properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am advised that the official concerned, who is a career civil servant in the Department of Employment group and who has most recently been employed in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for just over one year, returned to the Department of Employment last week. He has been made available by the Department to advise GCHQ management on future management-employee relations there. ACAS itself is in no way involved.

Is the Minister aware that he has just given an answer that in no way satisfies the House and is clearly a sleight of hand? Is he further aware that the decision to release an official of ACAS for work at GCHQ was taken entirely without consultation with the Council of Civil Service Unions? Is he further aware that the utter insensitivity of sending an ACAS official, even under the conditions that he has outlined, to set up a staff association following the ban on trade union membership at GCHQ is bound to cast doubt on the role of ACAS as a neutral mediator in all future industrial disputes and is extremely damaging to industrial relations?

Although I can understand the hon. Lady misunderstanding the position before I answered the question in such clear terms, it is incredible that she should persist with her supplementary question, which was obviously written before she heard my answer.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a meeting about GCHQ with trade union representatives on 23 February; and on 14 February I met representatives of the non-industrial unions to discuss Civil Service catering.

Since the events at Cheltenham are largely in the past, will my hon. Friend make every endeavor to maintain and improve relations with the Civil Service trade unions, first, because of their responsible conduct over a long period and, secondly, and more important, because of the importance of maintaining high morale in the Civil Service, which is vital to the efficient operation of government?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said. That is what we are doing.

When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he assure them that before a disgusting decision, such as was taken at Cheltenham, is taken again, he will sit down and discuss civil liberties, which were taken away from employees at Cheltenham?

When I next meet the Civil Service unions, I expect to discuss the matters which are on the agenda for that meeting.

asked the Minister of State for the Civil Service what subjects he will be discussing at his next meeting with the Civil Service trade unions.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Why does the Minister not realise that to ask an official who was for a time connected with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to set up the new staff association is highly deplorable and deeply offensive to the trade union movement? Is the Minister aware that no matter what decision is taken by the Government about GCHQ, the trade unions will campaign, and will never give up campaigning, to have the ban removed, in much the same way as the Civil Service unions fought the ban imposed by a Tory Government in 1927 against their being affiliated to the Trades Union Congress?

No, Sir. However, I criticise the hon. Gentleman for his persistence in seeking to misrepresent the position regarding ACAS and the official going to GCHQ. The hon. Gentleman ill serves the cause of ACAS by behaving as he does.

When the new staff association is set up at GCHQ, will those members of the staff who are still members of trade unions be allowed to stand for election to the council of the staff association?

My hon. Friend should address that question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Will the Minister give a firm undertaking to the House that the Government have no plans whatever to introduce further bans on trade union activity anywhere in the United Kingdom like the ban they saw fit to introduce at Cheltenham?

The assurance has been given in the clearest of terms by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. There is no intention to introduce similar action elsewhere. This action is confined to those agencies whose primary function is security and intelligence.

When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions will he put their minds at rest, especially in Scotland, about the dispersal of Overseas Development Administration jobs in East Kilbride, where there is a shortfall because the Government have not fulfilled their pledge?

The Government stand firmly by the undertakings that they gave in July 1979 for the dispersal programme, especially for the dispersals that have been announced for Scotland.